BIND9 built w/--disable-ipv6 on 8.1-STABLE

Kevin Oberman oberman at
Tue Sep 21 19:15:18 UTC 2010

> Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:06:43 -0700
> From: Doug Barton <dougb at>
> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable at
> Hash: SHA256
> On 9/21/2010 4:43 AM, Mark Kamichoff wrote:
> | On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 03:34:05PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> |> | Although, that still does beg the question,
> |>
> |> No, it doesn't. :) See
> |
> |
> Yes, especially the last bit, "Usage commentators have deemed using the
> term in this way to be incorrect." :)

Sadly, I must note that Edwin Newman
( passed away last month. I
fear the common, totally illogical use of this phrase is now a lost
cause. I could care less (not sic).

> |> | why don't we want IPv6 enabled by default on new BIND installations?
> |>
> |> It has to do with whether or not IPv6 support is compiled into the
> |> FreeBSD base system which is compiling BIND. If the configure option
> |> is set to enable but there is not the proper support in the base, then
> |> Bad Things(TM) happen. However, the way that it is set up now if the
> |> binaries are running on a system that has IPv6 support then that is
> |> detected, and you can use it if you choose. If the binaries are
> |> running on a system without IPv6 support, no harm, no foul.
> |
> | I see, that makes sense.  However, as IPv6 becomes more widely used
> | (perhaps quite far in the future, when folks are turning /off/ IPv4), it
> | might need revisiting.
> If I'm still alive when IPv6 is the norm and IPv4 is the exception, I
> promise to give it another look. :)

I'd suggest looking at it when IPv6 becomes a standard part of system
software and routing . That will happen long before IPv4 becomes an
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman at			Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751

More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list