09.10.2019 09:15, Baptiste Daroussin пишет:
I'm writing from 2019 and I build kernel and ports without IPv6. For all
this years I fail to understand why I need it.
My home devices fit 10.0.0.0/16 nicely, I have faith in NAT and I
encountered no IPv6-only sites.
But I saw CVEs in IPv6 stack.
On Oct 11, 2019, at 06:44, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
>
> LuKreme wrote on 2019/10/11 00:23:
>> On Oct 10, 2019, at 10:01, Lars Liedtke wrote:
>>> Why not just make building in IPv6 support the default, and introduce a
>>> flag if someone really needs or wants to build without
LuKreme wrote on 2019/10/11 00:23:
On Oct 10, 2019, at 10:01, Lars Liedtke wrote:
Why not just make building in IPv6 support the default, and introduce a
flag if someone really needs or wants to build without that support?
Because it adds to the load of testing. If you really need it, build
Am 09.10.2019 um 08:15 schrieb Baptiste Daroussin :
>
> I agree I don't see the reason why we should keep that ipv6 option. When off
> this option does not bring much value to the users as the code for apps to
> support ipv6 mostly reside in the libc. Actually that was my intent in 2012 to
>
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:02:23PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick via freebsd-ports
wrote:
> > Now we can get back on the ipv6 option.
> >
> > so if we want to proceed further in removing the option to build with or
> > without
> > ipv6 for the ports side. Please speak up in reply to this email, if you
> Now we can get back on the ipv6 option.
>
> so if we want to proceed further in removing the option to build with or
> without
> ipv6 for the ports side. Please speak up in reply to this email, if you are
> building without ipv6, why are you doing so, what are the real benefit for it.
> How
On Oct 10, 2019, at 10:01, Lars Liedtke wrote:
>
> Why not just make building in IPv6 support the default, and introduce a
> flag if someone really needs or wants to build without that support?
Because it adds to the load of testing. If you really need it, build from
source.
--
My main job
Robert Huff writes:
> Andrea Venturoli writes:
>
>> I'm building without IPv6, just because it's one (currently
>> useless) less thing to worry about (settings, security, etc...).
>
> Phrased differently: one less possible failure mode.
At the cost of one less possible success mode...
Andrea Venturoli writes:
> I'm building without IPv6, just because it's one (currently
> useless) less thing to worry about (settings, security, etc...).
Phrased differently: one less possible failure mode.
Respectfully,
Robert Huff
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:40:55PM +0200, Lars Liedtke wrote:
>
> Am 10.10.19 um 17:17 schrieb LuKreme:
> > On Oct 9, 2019, at 00:15, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >> I agree I don't see the reason why we should keep that ipv6 option. When
> >> off
> >> this option does not bring much value to
Am 10.10.19 um 17:17 schrieb LuKreme:
> On Oct 9, 2019, at 00:15, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> I agree I don't see the reason why we should keep that ipv6 option. When off
>> this option does not bring much value to the users as the code for apps to
>> support ipv6 mostly reside in the libc.
On Oct 9, 2019, at 00:15, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>
> I agree I don't see the reason why we should keep that ipv6 option. When off
> this option does not bring much value to the users as the code for apps to
> support ipv6 mostly reside in the libc. Actually that was my intent in 2012 to
>
On 2019-Oct-09 16:30:48 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>so if we want to proceed further in removing the option to build with or
>without
>ipv6 for the ports side.
Last time I checked, XDMCP differs enough between IPv4 and IPv6 that xdm
used a compile-time option to pick which to support.
--
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 07:44:55PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2019-Oct-09 16:30:48 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >so if we want to proceed further in removing the option to build with or
> >without
> >ipv6 for the ports side.
>
> Last time I checked, XDMCP differs enough between IPv4
On 2019-10-09 16:30, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
Hello.
Please speak up in reply to this email, if you are
building without ipv6, why are you doing so, what are the real benefit for it.
I'm building without IPv6, just because it's one (currently useless)
less thing to worry about (settings,
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 12:14:13PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 12:05:49PM +0200, Jan Beich wrote:
> > Yasuhiro KIMURA writes:
> >
> > > On October 10, 2012 IPV6 option of all ports was enabled by
> > > default. Commit message said "We are in 2012, it is time to
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 12:05:49PM +0200, Jan Beich wrote:
> Yasuhiro KIMURA writes:
>
> > On October 10, 2012 IPV6 option of all ports was enabled by
> > default. Commit message said "We are in 2012, it is time to activate
> > IPV6 options by default everywhere".
> >
> > And now we are in 2019.
Yasuhiro KIMURA writes:
> On October 10, 2012 IPV6 option of all ports was enabled by
> default. Commit message said "We are in 2012, it is time to activate
> IPV6 options by default everywhere".
>
> And now we are in 2019. IPv6 is more widely used than 2012. So I
> wonder if IPV6 option is
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:16:08PM +0300, abi via freebsd-ports wrote:
> 07.10.2019 09:18, Yasuhiro KIMURA пишет:
> > On October 10, 2012 IPV6 option of all ports was enabled by
> > default. Commit message said "We are in 2012, it is time to activate
> > IPV6 options by default everywhere".
> >
>
* Dave Horsfall [191009 02:58]:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:
>> So, you don't *need* IPv6. But you might *want* to have it anyway.
> In my 40+ years career I've only encountered one (1) client that ran IPv6
> internally (oddly enough, a law firm) and that was by management
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019, Wolfgang Zenker wrote:
So, you don't *need* IPv6. But you might *want* to have it anyway.
In my 40+ years career I've only encountered one (1) client that ran IPv6
internally (oddly enough, a law firm) and that was by management decree,
not the tehchies' (come to think
Hi,
* abi via freebsd-ports [191008 21:16]:
> 07.10.2019 09:18, Yasuhiro KIMURA пишет:
>> On October 10, 2012 IPV6 option of all ports was enabled by
>> default. Commit message said "We are in 2012, it is time to activate
>> IPV6 options by default everywhere".
>> And now we are in 2019. IPv6
07.10.2019 09:18, Yasuhiro KIMURA пишет:
On October 10, 2012 IPV6 option of all ports was enabled by
default. Commit message said "We are in 2012, it is time to activate
IPV6 options by default everywhere".
And now we are in 2019. IPv6 is more widely used than 2012. So I
wonder if IPV6 option
On 07.10.2019 13:18, Yasuhiro KIMURA wrote:
> On October 10, 2012 IPV6 option of all ports was enabled by
> default. Commit message said "We are in 2012, it is time to activate
> IPV6 options by default everywhere".
>
> And now we are in 2019. IPv6 is more widely used than 2012. So I
> wonder if
On October 10, 2012 IPV6 option of all ports was enabled by
default. Commit message said "We are in 2012, it is time to activate
IPV6 options by default everywhere".
And now we are in 2019. IPv6 is more widely used than 2012. So I
wonder if IPV6 option is still necessary.
If you use official
25 matches
Mail list logo
