From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 30 21:46:15 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD259106566C; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:46:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@freebsd.org) Received: from karen.lavabit.com (karen.lavabit.com [72.249.41.33]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64FAF8FC0C; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:46:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from d.earth.lavabit.com (d.earth.lavabit.com [192.168.111.13]) by karen.lavabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B49F211B8A5; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:46:14 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 10.0.10.3 (221.163.108.93.rev.vodafone.pt [93.108.163.221]) by lavabit.com with ESMTP id 3DZNHM73BL4T; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:46:14 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Rui Paulo In-Reply-To: <4CA4E221.4060107@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:46:11 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <175A9E47-8457-47A6-9CA1-BDBDC407961C@FreeBSD.org> References: <20100923.053236.231630719.hrs@allbsd.org> <4CA26BB7.2090907@FreeBSD.org> <89382820-E423-432E-8346-ADABB9FEED7F@FreeBSD.org> <4CA4E221.4060107@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testers: RFC 5569 (6rd) support in stf(4) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:46:15 -0000 On 30 Sep 2010, at 20:16, Doug Barton wrote: > On 9/30/2010 12:13 PM, Rui Paulo wrote: >> On 28 Sep 2010, at 23:27, Doug Barton wrote: >>=20 >>> On 9/22/2010 1:32 PM, Hiroki Sato wrote: >>> | Hello, >>> | >>> | Can anyone try a patch for adding 6rd (RFC 5569) support to = stf(4)? >>>=20 >>> Well I don't want to be "Mr. Negativity," but I'd like to suggest = that >>> adding this support is the wrong way to go. STF and teredo are >>> transition mechanisms, and we're currently knee-deep (well maybe >>> ankle-deep) in the deployment of IPv6. This is only going to pick up >>> steam in the next few years given the impending run-out of the free = /8s >>> in the IANA pool. >>=20 >> I disagree with you and I want to see this going in. >=20 > Perhaps you could provide a little more information about the basis = for your opinion, as I attempted to do for mine? If for no other reason = than to help educate me on why I'm wrong? I really don't feel like discussion this ad nauseum as your last IPv6 = thread, but 6rd is useful and your argument about the timeline for = FreeBSD 9.0 doesn't make sense: we can have this on FreeBSD 8-STABLE in = a week after this is committed to HEAD. -- Rui Paulo