Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 12:51:49 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Call for testers: RFC 5569 (6rd) support in stf(4) Message-ID: <AANLkTime6r%2B0jt1uGT8TH2AKLv=n6uurJ_mrAhmLXjc8@mail.gmail.com> 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 1 October 2010 06:55, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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. People are going to be using IPv4 for a number of years. More than IPv6 proponents want or believe. I don't see the harm of doing both this work and improving our IPv6 stack support in general. It's all about choice, right? Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTime6r%2B0jt1uGT8TH2AKLv=n6uurJ_mrAhmLXjc8>