From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 28 22:27:01 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADDE61065696 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:27:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542258FC1D for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:27:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 16908 invoked by uid 399); 28 Sep 2010 22:27:00 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.142?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 28 Sep 2010 22:27:00 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4CA26BB7.2090907@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:27:03 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <20100923.053236.231630719.hrs@allbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20100923.053236.231630719.hrs@allbsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2a1pre OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: 513 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Call for testers: RFC 5569 (6rd) support in stf(4) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:27:01 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 9/22/2010 1:32 PM, Hiroki Sato wrote: | Hello, | | Can anyone try a patch for adding 6rd (RFC 5569) support to stf(4)? Well I don't want to be "Mr. Negativity," but I'd like to suggest that adding this support is the wrong way to go. STF and teredo are transition mechanisms, and we're currently knee-deep (well maybe ankle-deep) in the deployment of IPv6. This is only going to pick up steam in the next few years given the impending run-out of the free /8s in the IANA pool. In my opinion we'd be much better off focusing on making our native IPv6 stack more robust rather than adding more transition protocols that will (with any kind of luck) be obsolete within the useful life of the 9.x branch. For example I seem to recall you identifying a performance penalty with the IPv6 loopback device vs. the IPv4 version. Doug - -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJMomu3AAoJEFzGhvEaGryE1hsH/iWx2smE8VC3akxNM8K8aCo5 ikGeSdpxRUVeu7Uz+fZ8RAIDkSPiD7qIIpGDFNJfur7KjojLJWS4twLCsXqmAQ62 kY4FsyWzogfYv+CnX1X7dmmYt7g1fNS3tzwq8cGS7HaQ74lP42W5dZBuqU8o9V2C 9Oq77LsmDNNnGYvpa9v/NgGxen6sm/ENC6Xb6cQ/5APd9inZqlJFjPwVQLvEFhf5 oI6GrP/jCprmhx7hDrnJ/OKvKp8+hxkzjRczRJ93ZYWWHvTSIhjkOaeCnTSwGmEa aFmdOVX+h3Y2rziNvrBhhzaDproGZXiyGUiZ/Lak/lypgbdpB7N3FO05p3hSaT8= =UjVm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----