Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:38:17 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testers: RFC 5569 (6rd) support in stf(4) Message-ID: <20100930231715.D95502@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <4CA51544.9080103@FreeBSD.org> References: <20100923.053236.231630719.hrs@allbsd.org> <4CA26BB7.2090907@FreeBSD.org> <89382820-E423-432E-8346-ADABB9FEED7F@FreeBSD.org> <4CA4E221.4060107@FreeBSD.org> <175A9E47-8457-47A6-9CA1-BDBDC407961C@FreeBSD.org> <4CA51544.9080103@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Doug Barton wrote: Hey, > In any case I didn't say that 6rd was not useful at all. What I tried to make > the case for is that its utility is limited, both in the absolute sense and > in the temporal sense; and that because of these limitations the benefits > that adding the code bring are outweighed by the costs of maintaining it past > what will likely be its useful lifetime. The maintainance costs are effectively pretty low, especially as it's coming with stf; it's a single line in a kernel config and not many more files but it will have great value to a lot of people the next years. > My point about FreeBSD 9 is that if we add the 6rd code today, then release > 9.0 in about a year, then support the RELENG_9 branch for 4-6 years that we > will still be maintaining code that no one has any use for. Sorry if I wasn't > clear. While I would like to live in that kind of world that by mid 10s all the tunneling, transition, .. technologies would be gone, ideally along with legacy IP, I guess you are massively underestimating this from the early adopters point of view; while for some of us things have happened and we are waiting for the world to catch up, for other folks things might not start within the another product lifecycle. I am sure we'll see a lot of different scenarios for quite some time. I would expect that we'll still be shipping that code in at least 12.x. Though completely taken out of context, Dave Ward's words the minute on from there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXMMBrWRnvc#t=49m54s summarizes some things quite nicely. > In contrast, the bit of my post that you snipped suggested that a better > course of action would be to focus on the areas of our v6 stack that will be > used for the lifetime of the protocol, like the performance penalty that > currently exists for the v6 loopback device. I think that noone questions that this will need time as well and so do another 15 things on the IPv6 side but maybe someone is already working on it .. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb Welcome a new stage of life.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100930231715.D95502>