Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:21:15 +0900 From: "George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com> To: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> Cc: vadim_nuclight@mail.ru, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net> Subject: Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0? Message-ID: <m2zlrspqgk.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <1208428791.1940.32.camel@localhost> References: <200803051432.m25EWaeT035807@drugs.dv.isc.org> <B3996775-850E-423D-AD03-B57CA471ADD4@verweg.com> <1208428791.1940.32.camel@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:39:51 +0100, Tom Evans wrote: > > [1 <text/plain (quoted-printable)>] > > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m2zlrspqgk.wl%gnn>