From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org  Tue Oct  8 19:18:35 2019
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
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 C9F1E13410D
 for <freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org>;
 Tue,  8 Oct 2019 19:18:35 +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 46nnFQ4pjQz4PYw
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Tue,  8 Oct 2019 19:18:34 +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 8298315B04
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Tue,  8 Oct 2019 19:18:26 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
References: <20191007.151841.1094708479149685365.yasu@utahime.org>
From: abi <abi@abinet.ru>
Message-ID: <9b8c9b1b-0d26-d9d7-018a-cafa8ec98c1e@abinet.ru>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 22:16:08 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20191007.151841.1094708479149685365.yasu@utahime.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46nnFQ4pjQz4PYw
X-Spamd-Bar: --
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.19 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[];
 RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[];
 R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[abinet.ru:s=dkim];
 NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.994,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(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];
 PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-ports@freebsd.org];
 TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1];
 NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0];
 IP_SCORE(-0.29)[asn: 25408(-1.47), country: RU(0.01)];
 DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[abinet.ru:+];
 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 <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 19:18:35 -0000

07.10.2019 09:18, Yasuhiro KIMURA пишет:
> 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.
>
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.