Call for testers: RFC 5569 (6rd) support in stf(4)

[Adrian Chadd]

On 1 October 2010 06:55, Doug Barton <dougb at freebsd.org> wrote:

> In any case I didn't say that 6rd was not useful at all. What I tried to
> make the case for is that its utility is limited, both in the absolute sense
> and in the temporal sense; and that because of these limitations the
> benefits that adding the code bring are outweighed by the costs of
> maintaining it past what will likely be its useful lifetime.

People are going to be using IPv4 for a number of years. More than
IPv6 proponents want or believe.

I don't see the harm of doing both this work and improving our IPv6
stack support in general.

It's all about choice, right?


Adrian