INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?

[Tom Evans]

On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 15:46 +0100, Ruben van Staveren wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2008, at 15:32, Mark Andrews wrote:
> 
> >> - IPv6 provides almost no technological upgrades beyond additional  
> >> address
> >> space. DHCP addressed the auto configuration feature, VPNs addressed
> >> IPsec.
> >
> > 	That extra address space really is a big advantage.  It
> > 	really is so much better to be able to get to machines you
> > 	need to without have to manually setup application relays
> > 	because you couldn't get enough address space to be able
> > 	to globally address everything want to.
> 
> Please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0
> 
> This song exactly explains why you should care about IPv6 :)
> 
> I don't get this "anti IPv6" behaviour. If people are not willing to  
> adopt it, it will not get tested which in turn will make other people  
> hesitating to jump on the bandwagon. Having it compiled in your system  
> does not cause harm if you don't configure it and for everything else  
> there are traffic filters. Just like IPv4.
> 
> - Ruben

Sorry to stir a hornets nest, but this[1] is why people have a distrust
of IPv6. This clearly is not a failing of IPv6, but it would still catch
people out who do not use IPv6, but have it enabled as part of a
'default' configuration.

If you don't use something at all, the chance of it having or exposing
some semi-related bug is not worth the risk.

[1] http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=5422+0
+current/freebsd-announce
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20080417/a94edcab/attachment.pgp