From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 17 13:22:09 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 520751065671 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:22:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Received: from outbound0.mx.meer.net (outbound0.mx.meer.net [209.157.153.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398EA8FC1B for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:22:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Received: from mail.meer.net (mail.meer.net [209.157.152.14]) by outbound0.mx.meer.net (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id m3HDM0hx068680; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:22:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Received: from mail2.meer.net (mail2.meer.net [64.13.141.16]) by mail.meer.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/meer) with ESMTP id m3HDLHcK017597; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:21:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Received: from minion.local.neville-neil.com (61.204.211.246.customerlink.pwd.ne.jp [61.204.211.246]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail2.meer.net (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m3HDLGbF099523; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:21:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:21:15 +0900 Message-ID: From: "George V. Neville-Neil" To: Tom Evans In-Reply-To: <1208428791.1940.32.camel@localhost> References: <200803051432.m25EWaeT035807@drugs.dv.isc.org> <1208428791.1940.32.camel@localhost> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Goj=F2?=) APEL/10.7 Emacs/22.1.50 (i386-apple-darwin8.11.1) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: vadim_nuclight@mail.ru, Mark Andrews , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Andy Dills Subject: Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:22:09 -0000 At Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:39:51 +0100, Tom Evans wrote: > > [1 ] > > On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 15:46 +0100, Ruben van Staveren wrote: > > On 5 Mar 2008, at 15:32, Mark Andrews wrote: > > > > >> - IPv6 provides almost no technological upgrades beyond additional > > >> address > > >> space. DHCP addressed the auto configuration feature, VPNs addressed > > >> IPsec. > > > > > > That extra address space really is a big advantage. It > > > really is so much better to be able to get to machines you > > > need to without have to manually setup application relays > > > because you couldn't get enough address space to be able > > > to globally address everything want to. > > > > Please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0 > > > > This song exactly explains why you should care about IPv6 :) > > > > I don't get this "anti IPv6" behaviour. If people are not willing to > > adopt it, it will not get tested which in turn will make other people > > hesitating to jump on the bandwagon. Having it compiled in your system > > does not cause harm if you don't configure it and for everything else > > there are traffic filters. Just like IPv4. > > > > - Ruben > > Sorry to stir a hornets nest, but this[1] is why people have a distrust > of IPv6. This clearly is not a failing of IPv6, but it would still catch > people out who do not use IPv6, but have it enabled as part of a > 'default' configuration. > > If you don't use something at all, the chance of it having or exposing > some semi-related bug is not worth the risk. > This is now addressed in HEAD. I think we can just avoid the political issues right now. Best, George