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

Doug Barton dougb at
Thu Sep 30 22:55:03 UTC 2010

On 9/30/2010 2:46 PM, Rui Paulo wrote:
> I really don't feel like discussion this ad nauseum as your last IPv6
> thread, but 6rd is useful and your argument about the timeline for
> FreeBSD 9.0 doesn't make sense: we can have this on FreeBSD 8-STABLE
> in a week after this is committed to HEAD.

Well I was actually trying to make a new start here and avoid discussing 
the history.

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.

My point about FreeBSD 9 is that if we add the 6rd code today, then 
release 9.0 in about a year, then support the RELENG_9 branch for 4-6 
years that we will still be maintaining code that no one has any use 
for. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

In contrast, the bit of my post that you snipped suggested that a better 
course of action would be to focus on the areas of our v6 stack that 
will be used for the lifetime of the protocol, like the performance 
penalty that currently exists for the v6 loopback device.

But that's really all I have to say, and I'd hate to ad nauseate you.



	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
			-- Propellerheads

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!

More information about the freebsd-net mailing list