Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 5 Aug 2003 09:37:52 -0700
From:      "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org>
To:        ticso@cicely.de
Cc:        FreeBSD-Current List <current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: INET6 in world
Message-ID:  <20030805163752.GA79120@dragon.nuxi.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030804140822.GU6331@cicely12.cicely.de>
References:  <3F2D1713.9060806@liwing.de> <20030803181735.GC6331@cicely12.cicely.de> <20030804152951.J54895@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> <20030804140822.GU6331@cicely12.cicely.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:08:23PM +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
> That's chicken/egg - IPv6 never will be widely used if everyone thinks
> that way.
> The sense is to break this dependency loop by ecouraging everyone to
> use it and not to make it easier to completely disable the support.
> As I said: you -always- have an IPv6 connection to the outside world
> as long as you have a single official IPv4 address.
> Not using it because it doesn't fit in your current network is one
> point, but disabling it in a way to make a future step to IPv6
> harder is another.
> The number of IPv4 only systems is already big enough - we don't need
> to build new ones.

Machanism, not policy.  I would also like to run with NO_INET6.  IPv6
support has done nothing for me other than cause me problems.  I still
strongly disagree with our ordering of localhost in /etc/hosts.  My
system worked worlds better when I put the IPv4 localhost first.

We don't want to kill IPv6 support in FreeBSD -- we both fully know there
are areas of the world where is it a very useful if not mandatory thing.
However that isn't the case for the USA yet, and I'm guessing Germany
also.

-- 
-- David  (obrien@FreeBSD.org)



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030805163752.GA79120>