From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat Oct 12 13:06:49 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52849131321 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:06:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from abi@abinet.ru) Received: from mail.abinet.ru (mail.abinet.ru [109.167.172.107]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46r4pb5Mdgz435k; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:06:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from abi@abinet.ru) Received: from sphinx.abinet.ru (unknown [10.0.2.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.abinet.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 581A916443; Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:06:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary? To: Baptiste Daroussin Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20191007.151841.1094708479149685365.yasu@utahime.org> <9b8c9b1b-0d26-d9d7-018a-cafa8ec98c1e@abinet.ru> <20191009061538.re66hcii2z73ry6p@ivaldir.net> From: abi Message-ID: Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:06:35 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191009061538.re66hcii2z73ry6p@ivaldir.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46r4pb5Mdgz435k X-Spamd-Bar: -- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.18 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[abinet.ru:s=dkim]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:109.167.172.107/32]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; IP_SCORE(-0.28)[asn: 25408(-1.44), country: RU(0.01)]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[abinet.ru:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[abinet.ru,reject]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:25408, ipnet:109.167.128.0/18, country:RU]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:06:49 -0000 09.10.2019 09:15, Baptiste Daroussin пишет: >> I'm writing from 2019 and I build kernel and ports without IPv6. For all >> this years I fail to understand why I need it. >> >> My home devices fit 10.0.0.0/16 nicely, I have faith in NAT and I >> encountered no IPv6-only sites. >> >> But I saw CVEs in IPv6 stack. > Plenty of FreeBSD things are ipv6 only in the FreeBSD cluster. In particular if > you do look at the build machines in the cluster, no ipv6 will mean no access to > the build log in case of failures. > > I agree I don't see the reason why we should keep that ipv6 option. When off > this option does not bring much value to the users as the code for apps to > support ipv6 mostly reside in the libc. Actually that was my intent in 2012 to > first turn it on by default everywhere and then drop the option entirely. Are you going to keep IPv6 kernel option? If off and ports can detect ipv6 availability in runtime, I don't see problem at all.