Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:15:55 +0000 From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: time to finally adopt IPv6 ? Message-ID: <A8564DD0-B50E-4E5D-8002-2F89E88449CB@lists.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <14082.1563976537@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <14082.1563976537@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 24 Jul 2019, at 13:55, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > We have ping(8), and ping6(8), we need to tell route(8) if we want -4 > or -6 > and so on and so forth. > > We dont need to rehash why IPv6 is treated as a stepchild, and even > less if it is anybodys fault, at this point it is an artifact of > history and just that. > > But isnt it about time we start in earnest to integrate things from > a command line point of view? > > Even if for source code hygiene points if it amounts to no more > than ping(8) re-execing ping6(8) when given an IPv6 argument ? What is ping(8)? I don’t have it. There is a GSoC project I think going on to do the ping thing though I cannot remember seeing emails about it; my take on this remains: please don’t try to mangle ping6 into ping; the arguments are too convoluted. We lost that almost 20 years ago. netstat, sockstat, route, nc, telnet, .., or even ifconfig could be more clever, indeed. Make IPv6 the default for commands (we have sysctls which could even tell you if the users wants 4 or 6 as default). Rip IPv4 out slowly and let it die is what I am working on … slowly … I think if we want to do the “inet”/“inet6” “-4”/“-6” “foo”/“foo6” cleanup, doing the inventory of all of them first and then have a common plan to straighten them all out would be good (keeping in mind that for a lot of people IPv4 will go away during the next decade). /bz
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A8564DD0-B50E-4E5D-8002-2F89E88449CB>