Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:46:11 +0100 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@FreeBSD.org> 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: <175A9E47-8457-47A6-9CA1-BDBDC407961C@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4CA4E221.4060107@FreeBSD.org> References: <20100923.053236.231630719.hrs@allbsd.org> <4CA26BB7.2090907@FreeBSD.org> <89382820-E423-432E-8346-ADABB9FEED7F@FreeBSD.org> <4CA4E221.4060107@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 30 Sep 2010, at 20:16, Doug Barton wrote: > On 9/30/2010 12:13 PM, Rui Paulo wrote: >> On 28 Sep 2010, at 23:27, Doug Barton wrote: >>=20 >>> 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)? >>>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> I disagree with you and I want to see this going in. >=20 > Perhaps you could provide a little more information about the basis = for your opinion, as I attempted to do for mine? If for no other reason = than to help educate me on why I'm wrong? I really don't feel like discussion this ad nauseum as your last IPv6 = thread, but 6rd is useful and your argument about the timeline for = FreeBSD 9.0 doesn't make sense: we can have this on FreeBSD 8-STABLE in = a week after this is committed to HEAD. -- Rui Paulo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?175A9E47-8457-47A6-9CA1-BDBDC407961C>