Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      13 May 1998 09:51:15 +0200
From:      dag-erli@ifi.uio.no (Dag-Erling Coidan =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= )
To:        Petri Helenius <pete@sms.fi>
Cc:        "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, Guido van Rooij <guido@gvr.org>, peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm), net@FreeBSD.ORG, core@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: INRIA IPv6 on FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <xzp1ztysj64.fsf@hindarfjell.ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: Petri Helenius's message of "Wed, 13 May 1998 03:06:13 %2B0300 (EEST)"
References:  <199805121802.UAA18013@gvr.gvr.org> 	<2990.894997902@time.cdrom.com> <13656.58219.715765.24138@silver.sms.fi>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Petri Helenius <pete@sms.fi> writes:
>  > I appreciate that people's time is limited, especially for
>  > bleeding-edge issues like IPv6, but perhaps a working group could be
>  > formed at this point to go actually study the various options far more
>  > substantially before we move on to the stage of talking seriously
>  > about committing anything?
> IPv6 is going to hit the road sometime later this year and it'd be sad 
> to see freebsd sitting on a bus stop at that time.

Precisely. I think we need to say, "FreeBSD 3.0-RELEASE will have full
IPv6 support" and start doing something to make it happen.

I am going to discuss this with some of the IPv6 researchers here and
try to determine, in the course of the next few weeks, what the
differences between the two implementions are and how significant they
are. It seems clear to me that the WIDE implementation would be far
easier to integrate than the INRIA implementation, so we might choose
that if we're pressed for time. But we should also keep in mind that
both stacks have different interfaces (e.g. different locations for
IPv6 header files; INRIA places its headers in /usr/include/netinet/
and modifies some of the existing headers, whereas WIDE places its
headers in /usr/include/netinet6/ and tries to modify as few existing
files as possible). This means that whichever stack we choose,
everyone developing software based on the other stack will either be
stuck with 2.2.6 or forced to rewrite their software to some extent.
The sooner we merge IPv6 into our tree, the fewer people will be
inconvenienced.

-- 
Noone else has a .sig like this one.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzp1ztysj64.fsf>