Forward: HEADS UP! Default value of ip6_v6only changed

Eugene M. Kim ab at
Sat Nov 1 19:39:28 PST 2003

Michael Nottebrock wrote:

> Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> If we ship with a default of v6only off, then people will
>> not fix software to open two sockets.  This in turn means that
>> turning v6only on will break this software. 
> I find the notion of making people "fix" their software to not rely on 
> RFC-defined behaviour problematic. I'm actually glad to see NetBSD 
> reversed their unfortunate decision regarding the default (and 
> OpenBSD's stunt of not even providing a knob is very evil indeed).

100% agreed here.  The standard exists for a reason.  If people find the 
standard problematic (in fact I concur with Itojun's analysis about 
IPv4-mapped addresses), they should voice in the appropriate forum to 
fix the standard rather than just ignore the standard and implement 
things in their own way, which only creates and/or worsens the 
compatibility nightmare.  (Another test knob into GNU autoconf.  Sad.)  
It's not like IETF RFC's are particularly hard to amend, either, at 
least compared to other standarization bodies.  IETF and its folks are 
*very* open and flexible IMHO.


More information about the freebsd-current mailing list