Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:36:08 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@FreeBSD.org> To: Yoshinobu Inoue <shin@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet6 in6.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0001271233020.95997-100000@green.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <200001271004.CAA34500@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Yoshinobu Inoue wrote: > shin 2000/01/27 02:04:32 PST > > Modified files: > sys/netinet6 in6.c > Log: > Added ip6_forwarding check when prefix related ioctl is called. > (prefix related ioctl should only be called on router, > because host use dynamic address and prefix configuration mechanism, > and those prefix are managed separately with ones whih are assined > manually.) I think you should get ipfw6 in now, even if it doesn't support everything ipfw(4) does. As long as it doesn't interfere with ipfw(4), I really think it should be in at the point of 4.0-RELEASE. My sentiments earlier were that I didn't want incompatible ipfw's, however if one is controlled by ipfw6(8) and one by ipfw(8), and they can be kept separate, it wouldn't be a problem to have both. It would be a bad idea to just plain have 4.0 go out without the IPv6 firewall, even if that said firewall was missing features of the IPv4 one. I would work on merging the features of the IPv4 ipfw into the ipfw6 after 4.0. What do you think? > Revision Changes Path > 1.6 +3 -1 src/sys/netinet6/in6.c -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! / green@FreeBSD.org `------------------------------' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0001271233020.95997-100000>