From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 6 10:41:45 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 45FBD1065675 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:41:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peterjeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.187]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD2C88FC24 for ; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 10:41:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peterjeremy@optushome.com.au) Received: from server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (c220-239-20-82.belrs4.nsw.optusnet.com.au [220.239.20.82]) by mail06.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m26AfexC014279 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:41:42 +1100 Received: from server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (localhost.vk2pj.dyndns.org [127.0.0.1]) by server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m26Afegg069612; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:41:40 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from peter@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org) Received: (from peter@localhost) by server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m26AfeZi069611; Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:41:40 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from peter) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:41:40 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy To: Ruben van Staveren Message-ID: <20080306104139.GX68971@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <20080306061339.3CE2C4500E@ptavv.es.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2O+9B+xSKalj/wdD" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key: http://members.optusnet.com.au/peterjeremy/pubkey.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: INET6 -- and why I don't use it 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, 06 Mar 2008 10:41:45 -0000 --2O+9B+xSKalj/wdD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 09:51:11AM +0100, Ruben van Staveren wrote: >The interesting thing, to stay on topic, is that people are willing to=20 >explore a feature called "SCTP" which to my knowledge is younger than=20 >"IPv6". This makes the whole discussion sort of moot, right ? In my case, I have a use for SCTP at work (we are using various protocols that run on top of SCTP) but we don't have any IPv6 networks in use. Personally, I find the IPv6 data reported in things like netstat are annoying. >had TCP/UDP for many years and they are still serving their purpose well,= =20 >so why change ? TCP isn't sufficiently robust for some Telco purposes: They can't accept the time it takes TCP to detect or recover from a link failure. >So give it a chance, only then there will be feedback and only then we can= =20 >fix the problems. Otherwise it will stay just theoretical. Agreed. But at this stage I can't justify the effort to do anything more than have a very cursory glance it at. What benefit would I derive from setting up an IPv6 network and attempting to experiment with it? My ISP won't support IPv6 and I'm reasonably certain my cable-modem doesn't either so IPv6 connectivity would entail some sort of tunnel. --=20 Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. --2O+9B+xSKalj/wdD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHz8pj/opHv/APuIcRApYJAKC8IMrjVoQE/OSsEqd1hUgCsiwfSACgvTqe lM7FzzhyVJewpXZkEGKqqIU= =3Rt4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --2O+9B+xSKalj/wdD--