Problems with IPv6-less kernel and world

Bruce M. Simpson bms at
Sun Feb 11 01:31:48 UTC 2007


I'm afraid I disagree with a few of the points you raise.

JoaoBR wrote:
> even if ipv6 is a real situation it is not the standard, ipv4 is, then, even 
> if ipv6 is some network's standard it is not a global standard, ipv4 is
> certainly then, it makes no sense that ipv6 is the default, neither for 
> applications nor for the kernel
Actually, it makes perfect sense that IPv6 is enabled in GENERIC when 
one considers that the world as a whole is gradually moving towards it, 
and especially so when FreeBSD's direct competitors in the operating 
systems space are doing the same.
> also certain then is that ipv6 is an ADDITIONAL option and who wants it, needs 
> to enable it, either for applications as for the kernel, not the inverse 
> situation as today
Again, I strongly disagree with this point, see above.
> but this is not only a FBSD wiredness but a general confusion  ...
> but so far as it matters to FBSD it is funny how many core/OS parts simply 
> ignore NO_INET6 even if set ... 
What is regrettable is that there has been a blurring of boundaries as 
you describe, from an architect's point of view. However, pointing it 
out in an email like this does nothing to change or improve the situation.

Surely it would be more constructive for all to point out exactly where 
the INET vs INET6 creep is emerging, catalogue it, and proactively 
communicate it to the people involved, or better still, submit patches 
and collaborate on fixing the issue? Just a thought.

Best regards,

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list