From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 13 20:16:03 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D4A5BF3; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:16:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from trashcan@t-online.de) Received: from mailout02.t-online.de (mailout02.t-online.de [194.25.134.17]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CD31259; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:16:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fwd50.aul.t-online.de (fwd50.aul.t-online.de ) by mailout02.t-online.de with smtp id 1UR6ri-00067P-2c; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:16:02 +0200 Received: from sulu.fritz.box (X7tOLvZQrhV3AQxWvWJdKRbCs1OrpSWkZLsQPtcWNhW9qc-hB+BgNvPExegwkaoZ5L@[62.226.251.113]) by fwd50.t-online.de with esmtp id 1UR6rZ-0BqTdA0; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:15:53 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) Subject: Re: ipv6_addrs_IF aliases in rc.conf(5) From: "Michael Grimm" In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 22:15:53 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <4476561A-43B6-4A7F-B0E9-EB40F7C1177C@odo.in-berlin.de> References: <50D1C553.9060100@wasikowski.net> <20121220132750.GB99616@stack.nl> <50D4F2E4.7020600@wasikowski.net> <20121222171400.GA2399@anubis.morrow.me.uk> <50D5F296.9050109@wasikowski.net> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, FreeBSD current X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) X-ID: X7tOLvZQrhV3AQxWvWJdKRbCs1OrpSWkZLsQPtcWNhW9qc-hB+BgNvPExegwkaoZ5L X-TOI-MSGID: ba5352f5-0b1b-4b64-8271-64f3f2fddae9 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 21:08:01 +0000 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:16:03 -0000 Hi -- On 13.04.2013, at 14:29, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: [great deal of simplification by ipv6_addrs_IF] > Sorry to resurrect this thread but since nothing has happened in about > three months I have to ask: What can I do to have this commited to > HEAD? +1 Nowadays -where IPv6 becomes more and more available by ISPs- I *really* would like to see this simplification implemented, soon, very soon. The current scheme is way to much error prone, and, its a pain in the ass! Thanks for the patch, Michael