INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?

[George V. Neville-Neil]

At Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:39:51 +0100,
Tom Evans wrote:
> 
> [1  <text/plain (quoted-printable)>]
> 
> 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.
> 

This is now addressed in HEAD.

I think we can just avoid the political issues right now.

Best,
George