Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:51:38 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Maksim Yevmenkin <emax@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r238622 - head/etc/rc.d Message-ID: <501AF66A.8020804@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAFPOs6rHmMPca7Xzhng82b17RPZObCCP64x%2BHPEBvf7%2BwK3pnQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201207191536.q6JFabOR094467@svn.freebsd.org> <20120803.055554.1380323232583218022.hrs@allbsd.org> <CAFPOs6rHmMPca7Xzhng82b17RPZObCCP64x%2BHPEBvf7%2BwK3pnQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/2/2012 2:25 PM, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> Just curious, why ip6addrctl_enable=NO is not enough here? Because the behavior of the script for =NO is to prefer v4. >> I would >> like to eliminate yes/no/none keywords in $ip6addrctl_policy because >> such keywords are vague. If we need the empty rule for some reason, >> "empty" would be a better name for the policy, I think. Personally I think that the established meanings of "yes" and "no" are well understood, but I wouldn't object to emitting a warning for them to help the user make a more explicit selection. While we're at it, the way that the current script replicates the test for checkyesno in case is bogus, and should be changed. I had fixed this in the change set that you(hrs) backed out. To stick with the structure of the current script, something like this would work: http://people.freebsd.org/~dougb/ip6addrctl.diff That also brings in the warning described above. > i just wanted to make sure that there is a way to absolutely make sure > that there is no default address selection policy installed. the wide > know rule 9 of rfc 3484 is really messing things up for dns-style load > balancing. even when ipv6 is not used. Maksim, can you say more about this? Or point me to a reference that has the discussion? > personally, i don't think that > "none" is unreasonable word for "ip6addrctl_policy", but i don't feel > particularly strongly about it. any name will do as long as original > functionality is preserved. I agree that "none" is reasonable, and is in line with other rc.d knobs. I would not object to "empty" being added as a synonym though. One request however, is this new knob documented in rc.conf.5? If not, can you do that please? :) Doug -- I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. -- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?501AF66A.8020804>