Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 12:51:49 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Call for testers: RFC 5569 (6rd) support in stf(4) Message-ID: <AANLkTime6r%2B0jt1uGT8TH2AKLv=n6uurJ_mrAhmLXjc8@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4CA51544.9080103@FreeBSD.org> 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> <4CA51544.9080103@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 1 October 2010 06:55, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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. People are going to be using IPv4 for a number of years. More than IPv6 proponents want or believe. I don't see the harm of doing both this work and improving our IPv6 stack support in general. It's all about choice, right? Adrianhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTime6r%2B0jt1uGT8TH2AKLv=n6uurJ_mrAhmLXjc8>