From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 30 22:55:03 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 7460D1065672 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:55:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1665E8FC1C for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:55:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 27569 invoked by uid 399); 30 Sep 2010 22:55:02 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.142?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 30 Sep 2010 22:55:02 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4CA51544.9080103@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:55:00 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rui Paulo References: <20100923.053236.231630719.hrs@allbsd.org> <4CA26BB7.2090907@FreeBSD.org> <89382820-E423-432E-8346-ADABB9FEED7F@FreeBSD.org> <4CA4E221.4060107@FreeBSD.org> <175A9E47-8457-47A6-9CA1-BDBDC407961C@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <175A9E47-8457-47A6-9CA1-BDBDC407961C@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2a1pre OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 22:55:03 -0000 On 9/30/2010 2:46 PM, Rui Paulo wrote: > > 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. Well I was actually trying to make a new start here and avoid discussing the history. In any case I didn't say that 6rd was not useful at all. What I tried to make the case for is that its utility is limited, both in the absolute sense and in the temporal sense; and that because of these limitations the benefits that adding the code bring are outweighed by the costs of maintaining it past what will likely be its useful lifetime. My point about FreeBSD 9 is that if we add the 6rd code today, then release 9.0 in about a year, then support the RELENG_9 branch for 4-6 years that we will still be maintaining code that no one has any use for. Sorry if I wasn't clear. In contrast, the bit of my post that you snipped suggested that a better course of action would be to focus on the areas of our v6 stack that will be used for the lifetime of the protocol, like the performance penalty that currently exists for the v6 loopback device. But that's really all I have to say, and I'd hate to ad nauseate you. Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/