Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:39:51 +0100 From: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com> To: Ruben van Staveren <ruben@verweg.com> Cc: vadim_nuclight@mail.ru, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews@isc.org>, Andy Dills <andy@xecu.net> Subject: Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0? Message-ID: <1208428791.1940.32.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <B3996775-850E-423D-AD03-B57CA471ADD4@verweg.com> References: <200803051432.m25EWaeT035807@drugs.dv.isc.org> <B3996775-850E-423D-AD03-B57CA471ADD4@verweg.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--=-z+VtvqzUJp2ZOv+1Dpn5 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 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: >=20 > >> - IPv6 provides almost no technological upgrades beyond additional =20 > >> 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. >=20 > Please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D_y36fG2Oba0 >=20 > This song exactly explains why you should care about IPv6 :) >=20 > I don't get this "anti IPv6" behaviour. If people are not willing to =20 > adopt it, it will not get tested which in turn will make other people =20 > hesitating to jump on the bandwagon. Having it compiled in your system =20 > does not cause harm if you don't configure it and for everything else =20 > there are traffic filters. Just like IPv4. >=20 > - 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. [1] http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=3D5422+0 +current/freebsd-announce --=-z+VtvqzUJp2ZOv+1Dpn5 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAkgHKPIACgkQlcRvFfyds/d7hgCdEktllD+ZJ2Fi8hWBzT5O7gzE afwAoKa5mHXleoooprbn5wkZlr1qg04R =puNa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-z+VtvqzUJp2ZOv+1Dpn5--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1208428791.1940.32.camel>