On December 12, 2019 10:17:24 AM CST, Joel Bion via lfs-dev <[email protected]> wrote: >I agree with what Uwe is saying 100%. > >IPv6 use is increasing - right now Google is seeing 24.9% of its >incoming daily traffic is IPv6, of course a lot of that has to do with >mobile devices. > >But nobody can really ignore it any more. Ubuntu, Fedora/RedHat, Mint, >etc. - they all support the thing 'out of the box.' >
Agreed. >In my own experience in adding IPv6 to a public-facing server with a >global static IPv4, used for my weather-station hobby, that I pretty >much had to change hosts, resolv.conf, and one firewall rule for my >firewall. > >It's time to get IPv6 awareness into LFS. If not in the 'core' LFS, >then >the 'core LFS' should point to a hint, because enough people are going >to want to use this. > >As to the multi-stack vs. single-stack service files for the network >configuration, I will admit that I still really lean towards a single >configuration file with a multi-stack service, as long as that >multi-stack service file can handle the IPv4 only (and IPv6-only) use >cases as well. Why do I lean towards this? A few reasons: > >1) Explaining to people that to add a static-IPv6 to LFS is just adding > >IP6ADDRESS, IP6PREFIX to the ifconfig.eth0 file is much simpler than >saying "create this second file and put them in, and use this service >file, etc. > >2) If you are going to a multi-file approach for network configuration, > >I would vote it should be done fully or not at all. A good example of >this is: Where does MTU go? It's a Layer 2 thing - doesn't belong in a >v4 config, or a v6 config, as it usually applies to both, but yet >support for MTU handling is in /sbin/ifup. So how is this case handled? > >And since things like MTU and other Layer2 stuff want to be settled on >an interface BEFORE you kick off the layer 3 initialization, you will >want to make sure that information is read in and processed before the >layer 3 things. However, if all configuration is in one file, then any >script handling it can do things in the proper order. In other words, >either keep things very simple (and limited in flexibility) like today >- >or bite the bullet and go to a network configuration/setup system that >handles all that stuff. > Sorry that I haven't responded to this yet, it's not gone unnoticed. I've been thinking about it, and you've brought up some important points that deserve some soak time. A single configuration file makes a lot of sense. :-) --DJ -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
