Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:15:17 -0700
From:      "Kevin Oberman" <oberman@es.net>
To:        Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Mark Kamichoff <prox@prolixium.com>
Subject:   Re: BIND9 built w/--disable-ipv6 on 8.1-STABLE 
Message-ID:  <20100921191517.AF60A1CC3D@ptavv.es.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:06:43 PDT." <4C98F433.6070506@FreeBSD.org> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:06:43 -0700
> From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> On 9/21/2010 4:43 AM, Mark Kamichoff wrote:
> | On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:34:05PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> |> | Although, that still does beg the question,
> |>
> |> No, it doesn't. :) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question
> |
> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question#Modern_usage
> 
> Yes, especially the last bit, "Usage commentators have deemed using the
> term in this way to be incorrect." :)

Sadly, I must note that Edwin Newman
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Newman) passed away last month. I
fear the common, totally illogical use of this phrase is now a lost
cause. I could care less (not sic).

> |> | why don't we want IPv6 enabled by default on new BIND installations?
> |>
> |> It has to do with whether or not IPv6 support is compiled into the
> |> FreeBSD base system which is compiling BIND. If the configure option
> |> is set to enable but there is not the proper support in the base, then
> |> Bad Things(TM) happen. However, the way that it is set up now if the
> |> binaries are running on a system that has IPv6 support then that is
> |> detected, and you can use it if you choose. If the binaries are
> |> running on a system without IPv6 support, no harm, no foul.
> |
> | I see, that makes sense.  However, as IPv6 becomes more widely used
> | (perhaps quite far in the future, when folks are turning /off/ IPv4), it
> | might need revisiting.
> 
> If I'm still alive when IPv6 is the norm and IPv4 is the exception, I
> promise to give it another look. :)

I'd suggest looking at it when IPv6 becomes a standard part of system
software and routing . That will happen long before IPv4 becomes an
exception.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman@es.net			Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100921191517.AF60A1CC3D>