From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 1 19:39:28 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38B8216A4CF for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 19:39:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from purple.the-7.net (purple.the-7.net [207.158.28.23]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F0543F3F for ; Sat, 1 Nov 2003 19:39:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ab@astralblue.net) Received: from astralblue.net (adsl-68-122-1-21.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net [68.122.1.21]) by purple.the-7.net (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9U59BEk005377; Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:09:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ab@astralblue.net) Message-ID: <3FA09CEA.2070600@astralblue.net> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:08:58 -0800 From: "Eugene M. Kim" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030926 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ko MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Nottebrock References: <20031028063802.GC10818@canolog.ninthwonder.com> <3F9FE5AD.2090901@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <3F9FE5AD.2090901@gmx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Christian Weisgerber Subject: Re: Forward: HEADS UP! Default value of ip6_v6only changed X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 03:39:28 -0000 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