Date: 13 May 1998 11:24:37 +0200 From: dag-erli@ifi.uio.no (Dag-Erling Coidan =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ) To: Jun-ichiro itojun Itoh <itojun@itojun.org> Cc: Petri Helenius <pete@sms.fi>, "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: <xzpwwbqzfoq.fsf@hrotti.ifi.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Jun-ichiro itojun Itoh's message of "Wed, 13 May 1998 18:09:28 %2B0900" References: <13955.895050568@coconut.itojun.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jun-ichiro itojun Itoh <itojun@itojun.org> writes: > > 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, > > All we have to conform for header file placement is two RFCs > (RFC2133 and RFC2292). WIDE stack for 2.2.6 is aimed for > plug-and-play installation so we do want to patch small number > of files as possible so we have chosen to put those files into > sys/netinet6. (of course, we are flexible about this and may try to > move those into sys/netinet, if there's any significant differences) My position on this is that if you consider IPv6 as a new, separate protocol (as I do) then it should go into a separate directory. If you consider it as an update of an older protocol, it should go into the same directory. -- 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?xzpwwbqzfoq.fsf>