Is IPV6 option still necessary?

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:16:08PM +0300, abi via freebsd-ports wrote:
> 07.10.2019 09:18, Yasuhiro KIMURA пишет:
> > On October 10, 2012 IPV6 option of all ports was enabled by
> > default. Commit message said "We are in 2012, it is time to activate
> > IPV6 options by default everywhere".
> > 
> > And now we are in 2019. IPv6 is more widely used than 2012. So I
> > wonder if IPV6 option is still necessary.
> > 
> > If you use official packages then you always use IPv6-enabled
> > binaries. And even if you build packages by yourself you still use
> > IPv6-enabled ones unless you disable IPV6 option. So I think at most
> > only a few people uses IPv6-disabled packages.
> > 
> > Are there anybody who still disables IPV6 option for some serious
> > reason such as working around IPv6-related problem? If there aren't
> > then I think it's time to remove IPV6 option from ports framework.
> > 
> I'm writing from 2019 and I build kernel and ports without IPv6. For all
> this years I fail to understand why I need it.
> 
> My home devices fit 10.0.0.0/16 nicely, I have faith in NAT and I
> encountered no IPv6-only sites.
> 
> But I saw CVEs in IPv6 stack.

Plenty of FreeBSD things are ipv6 only in the FreeBSD cluster. In particular if
you do look at the build machines in the cluster, no ipv6 will mean no access to
the build log in case of failures.

I agree I don't see the reason why we should keep that ipv6 option. When off
this option does not bring much value to the users as the code for apps to
support ipv6 mostly reside in the libc. Actually that was my intent in 2012 to
first turn it on by default everywhere and then drop the option entirely.

Best regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20191009/58963531/attachment.sig>