On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:24:57AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 06:58:53AM +0200, J?r?mie Courr?ges-Anglas wrote: > > Paul de Weerd <we...@weirdnet.nl> writes: > > > > [...] > > > > > This makes a whole lot of sense to me. Please make OpenBSD the first > > > OS to do (this part of) v6 in a sensible way. > > > > Actually that makes me laugh. Sensible, weeeh. Let's protect our users > > from the dangers of IPv6 link-local addresses! Wait, what users are we > > talking about? We have no users, right, we have developers that break > > stuff, and other developers that clean up the feces. Between +inet6 and > > eui64 all we have are non-idiomatic or broken alternatives. > > > > Link-local addresses have been "exposed" since almost 15 years now, it's > > a good time to decide that they are persona non grata in OpenBSD land. > > After all, the v6 stack has had all the testing it could get, now that > > we know that it works well, we don't need testing anymore. > > > > What could be sensible, though, is accepting the fact that IPv6 exists, > > and the fact that link-local addresses are part of it, whether you have > > global connectivity or not. Now call me a v6 zealot, I probably live > > and work in an imaginary world. > > That reasoning would also leed to the conclusion that we should remove > 'up' and 'down' from ifconfig. Since you have a network card installed and > it is part of the system and should therefor be running.
And by this argument it should be running IPX/SPX and NBF all the time as well. Why not run the line up/line down protocol too for backwards compatibility. > There is no need > to install a link-local address on an interface just because it was up-ed. But to be clear, it is supposedly required to have a link-local address if IPv6 is to be used on that interface, unless it is used as a bridge without it's own IP address. > Would you like that we install link local IPv4 addresses on all > interfaces? It would be possible. It would be ridiculous. It would be ridiculous, but somebody would find a use for it. > Also not every interface needs a link-local address. It actually causes > strange behaviours when bridge(4)-ing stuff together. This is why -inet6 > was created as a hack around the fact that IPv6 is greedy taking over your > network. Damn this IPv6 virus! Is IPv6 really just an evil plan by the sinister corporations and governments of the world to DDOS the entire internet, one OpenBSD box at a time? Let's face it, EBCDIC didn't cause enough confusion and headaches so let's try confusing people with IPv6, complete with IP addresses that look like an MD5 checksum gone wrong, and impossible to remember. > It is time to replace the hack with a proper solution. IPv6 exists. It's useful. OpenBSD supports it very well. Do we need it enabled by default? No. -- Creamy! <3
