From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Oct 7 21:26:54 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 DC6AC139C89 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 21:26:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:c2c:26d8::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46nD7x3rP0z4bNX for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2019 21:26:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (eg.sd.rdtc.ru [IPv6:2a03:3100:c:13:0:0:0:5]) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x97LQgn8068864 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 7 Oct 2019 21:26:43 GMT (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: yasu@utahime.org Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (eugen@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x97LQgLp024029; Tue, 8 Oct 2019 04:26:42 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary? To: Yasuhiro KIMURA , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20191007.151841.1094708479149685365.yasu@utahime.org> From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: <5D9BAD92.4090909@grosbein.net> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 04:26:42 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191007.151841.1094708479149685365.yasu@utahime.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q, LOCAL_FROM, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record * 2.7 DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_Q Date: is 4 days to 4 months after Received: * date * 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record * 2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46nD7x3rP0z4bNX X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=permerror (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of eugen@grosbein.net uses mechanism not recognized by this client) smtp.mailfrom=eugen@grosbein.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.62 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.98)[-0.977,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[grosbein.net]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_PERMFAIL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-1.54)[ip: (-3.86), ipnet: 2a01:4f8::/29(-2.05), asn: 24940(-1.80), country: DE(-0.01)] 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: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 21:26:54 -0000 On 07.10.2019 13:18, Yasuhiro KIMURA wrote: > On October 10, 2012 IPV6 option of all ports was enabled by > default. Commit message said "We are in 2012, it is time to activate > IPV6 options by default everywhere". > > And now we are in 2019. IPv6 is more widely used than 2012. So I > wonder if IPV6 option is still necessary. > > If you use official packages then you always use IPv6-enabled > binaries. And even if you build packages by yourself you still use > IPv6-enabled ones unless you disable IPV6 option. So I think at most > only a few people uses IPv6-disabled packages. > > Are there anybody who still disables IPV6 option for some serious > reason such as working around IPv6-related problem? If there aren't > then I think it's time to remove IPV6 option from ports framework. Think about embedded systems designed for internal use mostly/only (limited or no global connectivity) with very constrained space for a code. Ability to reduce code bloat is good thing.