Date: Sun, 05 May 1996 00:43:03 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>, FreeBSD-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: IPv8 Tutorial #1: Minimal IPv8 hack Message-ID: <199605050643.AAA29367@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 04 May 1996 23:33:14 PDT
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
: Well, if nothing else it's pretty confusing. When I first saw this : mentioned, before receiving clarification, my reaction was to go : "What?! IPv6 isn't even out yet, now somebody's talking about IPv8?? : What the &*^%@#$! is going on here?!?" : : These changes should start going under a different operating title, at : the very least. I object in the strongest possible terms to including them in the standard FreeBSD distribution. If Jim wants to make them available as a set of patches to the various BSD flavors, more power to him. This code is fairly stable, and he should be able to maintain the set of patches with a minumum of hassle. We don't include the IPv6 stuff yet, and it has the full faith and credit of the Internet standards folks behind it. Why should we accept a hack that is named such that it will cause confusion in the kernel. I think it ill advised. Also, he's claiming all the versions of IP with the high bit set, if you look at the code he posted. Very dangerous precident to set. Bad Kharma. All of this could also be implemented with an IP option that describes which "cloud" the packet belongs to, as near as I've been able to tell. Why is a new version absolutely required here? IPv8, the name, is a political statement by Jim about IPv6. Should FreeBSD be party to propigating this statement and confusion? No. Finally, while I'm adamantly opposed to placing this in the FreeBSD kernel, Jim can and should distribute patches that he finds good and useful. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605050643.AAA29367>