Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:08:58 -0800 From: "Eugene M. Kim" <ab@astralblue.net> To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Cc: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> Subject: Re: Forward: HEADS UP! Default value of ip6_v6only changed Message-ID: <3FA09CEA.2070600@astralblue.net> In-Reply-To: <3F9FE5AD.2090901@gmx.net> References: <20031028063802.GC10818@canolog.ninthwonder.com> <yge65i94i7t.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <bnmvev$2mqh$1@kemoauc.mips.inka.de> <3F9FE5AD.2090901@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Nottebrock wrote: > Christian Weisgerber wrote: > >> If we ship with a default of v6only off, then people will >> not fix software to open two sockets. This in turn means that >> turning v6only on will break this software. > > > I find the notion of making people "fix" their software to not rely on > RFC-defined behaviour problematic. I'm actually glad to see NetBSD > reversed their unfortunate decision regarding the default (and > OpenBSD's stunt of not even providing a knob is very evil indeed). 100% agreed here. The standard exists for a reason. If people find the standard problematic (in fact I concur with Itojun's analysis about IPv4-mapped addresses), they should voice in the appropriate forum to fix the standard rather than just ignore the standard and implement things in their own way, which only creates and/or worsens the compatibility nightmare. (Another test knob into GNU autoconf. Sad.) It's not like IETF RFC's are particularly hard to amend, either, at least compared to other standarization bodies. IETF and its folks are *very* open and flexible IMHO. Eugene
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FA09CEA.2070600>