I admit deployment on consumer links is quite slow. I have no IPv6 native connectivity myself. But it is different connecting over IPv6 and supporting its addresses.
What would disabling on compile time bring? Smaller dnsmasq binary? dnsmasq is tiny already. But it has many bugs. Many of them come from hard maintainability of its source code. Any improvement counts. How many kilobytes would it save, when IPv6 would be disabled on compile time? 10k? 30k? Is there any hardware running recent version, where it would make any difference? I doubt so. I am not proposing to not support IPv4 only systems. I just see no reason to support platforms without IPv6 headers required for compilation. On 10/30/20 5:52 PM, Roy Marples wrote: > On 30/10/2020 15:30, Petr Menšík wrote: >> It is year 2020, IPv6 is far too long with us to be optional. > Has it? > > https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption > > > Looks to me like most of the world doesn't even have IPv6. > And thanks to Netflix blocking if you use an IPv6 tunnel that's out of > the question as well. > >> IPv4 support is not optional either. > > This isn't entirely true either. IPv6 only networks *can* access IPv4 > networks. > See RFC 6586 for details and pitfalls. If it can provide service on IPv6 only network, that is only my concern. Tunelling and compatibility protocols are unrelated. -- Petr Menšík Software Engineer Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/ email: pemen...@redhat.com PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
OpenPGP_0x4931CA5B6C9FC5CB_and_old_rev.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss