Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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. Plenty of FreeBSD things are ipv6 only in the FreeBSD cluster. In particular if you do look at the build machines in the cluster, no ipv6 will mean no access to the build log in case of failures. 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 first turn it on by default everywhere and then drop the option entirely. Are you going to keep IPv6 kernel option? If off and ports can detect ipv6 availability in runtime, I don't see problem at all. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 that support? >> Because it adds to the load of testing. If you really need it, build from >> source. > Building official packages with IPv6 is OK. Removing existing options from > ports and saying "build from source" is ... stupid. How many ports do you maintain? Are you willing to test and patch ports for removing ipv6 on each new version? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 from source. Building official packages with IPv6 is OK. Removing existing options from ports and saying "build from source" is ... stupid. Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 > first turn it on by default everywhere and then drop the option entirely. Is there an easy way to tell which ports pay attention to the option? Stefan -- Stefan BethkeFon +49 151 14070811 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [HEADSUP] Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 are > > building without ipv6, why are you doing so, what are the real benefit for > > it. > > How bad it will impact you if we do remove that option? > > Whenever I use ports over FreeBSD-provided packages (or to use ports to > build my own packages), I often disable IPV6 support. The lengthy > response below should explain why. > > In short: the IPV6 option is useful and important. Please keep it. > > In length: I think anyone operating in the Real World knows quite well > that IPv6 is still treated as a third-class citizen when it comes to > both general connectivity/reliability* and general use cases > code-wise**. It's still very much in utero; or a toddler, if you will. > > When you encounter IPv6 vs. IPv4 prioritisation issues, they are painful > and annoying. No user or administrator is going to sit for hours > fiddling with it all to restore things to a working state when simply > removing IPv6 relieves the problem permanently. Time and time again I > see companies advertising records and webservers listening on IPv6 > yet IPv6 transit fails but their A/IPv4 endpoint works fine. It's the > dual-stack nature that makes a lot of this worse than it should be. (I > do think this subject should be re-visited once the world as a whole > starts to seriously decommission IPv4, though. Yes I'm serious.) > > I've worked for several companies that are IPv4-only, where the belief > (and one I share) is that IPv6-only clients have some 6-to-4-ish > gateway/NAT somewhere upstream, otherwise they wouldn't be able to reach > most of the Internet. IPv4 NAT still works for the majority of use > cases still as of 2019. > > Furthermore, faux-political statements like "IPv6 is more widely used > than 2012" should be ignored and facts reiterated: IPv6 adoption is > around 25% as of mid-2019. And it's taken over 10 years to reach that. > > IPv4 is also well-understood, and not, as Dave Horsfall accurately > described, "a horse designed by a committee"; people are still trying to > wrap their head around IPv6 NDP/RA, SLAAC, and a myriad of other things > (dare I mention syntax?). It's this which explains the sluggish > adoption rate. > > And yes, I am well-aware of how important IPv6 is in other regions, > particularly Asia. I am not belittling that need at all. But not > everyone globally has the same needs. > > What should really be asked for is the opposite: for the FreeBSD ports > folks to justify its removal. > > How is this hurting you on a daily basis? Is there a large percentage > of Mk/ framework bits causing you pain? Are the bulk of per-port > patches inducing maintainer grief? At what scale is this impacting you? > In 7 years (since the OP picked 2012), how much time has been spent by > maintainers ensuring IPV6=true works for their port(s)? Are you truly > OK throwing away the integration work done by many, many people (not > just Project members!) over the past N years (see: per-port patches), > and forcing people who still need the option to make their own ports > tree to retain it? > > Here's some harsh advice for the FreeBSD Project: quit changing shit for > sake of change, often masked by lies like "XXX is stagnant/old" or > similarly fallacious and loaded statements. The project (both src and > ports, but especially ports) have lost many very good people in the past > 10+ years (and I'm not talking about me) *because* of that change for > sake of change mindset -- the same mindset driving this request! It's > changes like this that drive people away from FreeBSD. Really. It's > the same mindset that provoked people to stop using Linux distros due > to systemd integration. > > I will not be replying to this thread past this point. I have said all > that I care to say / spent enough time on it. Just please stop hurting > administrators and end users with proposals/actions like this. > > * - Real-world IPv6 failures impacting end users tend to be higher > than IPv4; this is anecdotal on my part, but I have a myriad of peers > who have had to disable IPv6 for similar reasons. The IPv4 fallback in > software (both userland apps and network stacks) does not always work > "correctly". Just go see how often IPv6 failures/issues are reported on > both NANOG and the outages@ mailing list. And yes I am quite aware that > a good portion of the Internet backbone at this point is IPv6 (that's > nice, and not what we're talking about here). > > ** - I still continue to see open-source software committing major fixes > to AF_INET6 related code bits. Major pieces of software include curl, > wget, Busybox, DNS servers (pick one!), and ntp... just for starters. > Let's get on
Re: [HEADSUP] Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
> 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 bad it will impact you if we do remove that option? Whenever I use ports over FreeBSD-provided packages (or to use ports to build my own packages), I often disable IPV6 support. The lengthy response below should explain why. In short: the IPV6 option is useful and important. Please keep it. In length: I think anyone operating in the Real World knows quite well that IPv6 is still treated as a third-class citizen when it comes to both general connectivity/reliability* and general use cases code-wise**. It's still very much in utero; or a toddler, if you will. When you encounter IPv6 vs. IPv4 prioritisation issues, they are painful and annoying. No user or administrator is going to sit for hours fiddling with it all to restore things to a working state when simply removing IPv6 relieves the problem permanently. Time and time again I see companies advertising records and webservers listening on IPv6 yet IPv6 transit fails but their A/IPv4 endpoint works fine. It's the dual-stack nature that makes a lot of this worse than it should be. (I do think this subject should be re-visited once the world as a whole starts to seriously decommission IPv4, though. Yes I'm serious.) I've worked for several companies that are IPv4-only, where the belief (and one I share) is that IPv6-only clients have some 6-to-4-ish gateway/NAT somewhere upstream, otherwise they wouldn't be able to reach most of the Internet. IPv4 NAT still works for the majority of use cases still as of 2019. Furthermore, faux-political statements like "IPv6 is more widely used than 2012" should be ignored and facts reiterated: IPv6 adoption is around 25% as of mid-2019. And it's taken over 10 years to reach that. IPv4 is also well-understood, and not, as Dave Horsfall accurately described, "a horse designed by a committee"; people are still trying to wrap their head around IPv6 NDP/RA, SLAAC, and a myriad of other things (dare I mention syntax?). It's this which explains the sluggish adoption rate. And yes, I am well-aware of how important IPv6 is in other regions, particularly Asia. I am not belittling that need at all. But not everyone globally has the same needs. What should really be asked for is the opposite: for the FreeBSD ports folks to justify its removal. How is this hurting you on a daily basis? Is there a large percentage of Mk/ framework bits causing you pain? Are the bulk of per-port patches inducing maintainer grief? At what scale is this impacting you? In 7 years (since the OP picked 2012), how much time has been spent by maintainers ensuring IPV6=true works for their port(s)? Are you truly OK throwing away the integration work done by many, many people (not just Project members!) over the past N years (see: per-port patches), and forcing people who still need the option to make their own ports tree to retain it? Here's some harsh advice for the FreeBSD Project: quit changing shit for sake of change, often masked by lies like "XXX is stagnant/old" or similarly fallacious and loaded statements. The project (both src and ports, but especially ports) have lost many very good people in the past 10+ years (and I'm not talking about me) *because* of that change for sake of change mindset -- the same mindset driving this request! It's changes like this that drive people away from FreeBSD. Really. It's the same mindset that provoked people to stop using Linux distros due to systemd integration. I will not be replying to this thread past this point. I have said all that I care to say / spent enough time on it. Just please stop hurting administrators and end users with proposals/actions like this. * - Real-world IPv6 failures impacting end users tend to be higher than IPv4; this is anecdotal on my part, but I have a myriad of peers who have had to disable IPv6 for similar reasons. The IPv4 fallback in software (both userland apps and network stacks) does not always work "correctly". Just go see how often IPv6 failures/issues are reported on both NANOG and the outages@ mailing list. And yes I am quite aware that a good portion of the Internet backbone at this point is IPv6 (that's nice, and not what we're talking about here). ** - I still continue to see open-source software committing major fixes to AF_INET6 related code bits. Major pieces of software include curl, wget, Busybox, DNS servers (pick one!), and ntp... just for starters. -- | Jeremy Chadwick j...@koitsu.org | | UNIX Systems Administrator PGP 0x2A389531 | | Making life hard for others since 1977.| ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 is trying to come up with new and innovative and effective ways to reject even more mail. I'm up to about 97% now. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [HEADSUP] Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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... ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [HEADSUP] Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 the users as the code for apps to > >> support ipv6 mostly reside in the libc. Actually that was my intent in > >> 2012 to > >> first turn it on by default everywhere and then drop the option entirely. > > My isp does not support ipv6, so my services are not set to use it. I did > > have to specifically disable it in configuration for something, I forget > > what, but I have never felt the need to disable it in builds. > > > 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? > > Best regards > Which is the current situation ;) Except the ipv6 options is inconsistently spread accross the ports, most of the ports do not even support building without ipv6 etc. Which is why came the question about why not removing that option totally, because the current situation is clearly inconsistent. Best regards, Bapt signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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. Actually that was my intent in 2012 >> to >> first turn it on by default everywhere and then drop the option entirely. > My isp does not support ipv6, so my services are not set to use it. I did > have to specifically disable it in configuration for something, I forget > what, but I have never felt the need to disable it in builds. > 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? Best regards Lars -- punkt.de GmbH * Kaiserallee 13a * 76133 Karlsruhe Tel. 0721 9109 0 * Fax 0721 9109 100 i...@punkt.de https://www.punkt.de Gf: Jürgen Egeling AG Mannheim 108285 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 > first turn it on by default everywhere and then drop the option entirely. My isp does not support ipv6, so my services are not set to use it. I did have to specifically disable it in configuration for something, I forget what, but I have never felt the need to disable it in builds. -- Sent from my iPad ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [HEADSUP] Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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. -- Peter Jeremy signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [HEADSUP] Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 and IPv6 that xdm > used a compile-time option to pick which to support. For cases like that we should have flavors, exactly like we have for bird for example. Best regards, Bapt signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [HEADSUP] Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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, security, etc...). How bad it will impact you if we do remove that option? I'll end up building and running ports/packages on systems with IPv6 disabled in the kernel. If there's no problem with that, I think I won't be impacted at all. bye & Thanks av. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
[HEADSUP] Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 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. > > > > ipv6 in CATEGORIES is also of dubious value nowadays. For one, > > www/firefox has "ipv6" while www/chromium does not. > > This one is even easier to fix ;) > Done. 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 bad it will impact you if we do remove that option? Best regards, Bapt signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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. IPv6 is more widely used than 2012. So I > > wonder if IPV6 option is still necessary. > > ipv6 in CATEGORIES is also of dubious value nowadays. For one, > www/firefox has "ipv6" while www/chromium does not. This one is even easier to fix ;) Best regards, Bapt signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 still necessary. ipv6 in CATEGORIES is also of dubious value nowadays. For one, www/firefox has "ipv6" while www/chromium does not. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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". > > > > 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 packages then you always use IPv6-enabled > > binaries. And even if you build packages by yourself you still use > > IPv6-enabled ones unless you disable IPV6 option. So I think at most > > only a few people uses IPv6-disabled packages. > > > > Are there anybody who still disables IPV6 option for some serious > > reason such as working around IPv6-related problem? If there aren't > > then I think it's time to remove IPV6 option from ports framework. > > > 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. Plenty of FreeBSD things are ipv6 only in the FreeBSD cluster. In particular if you do look at the build machines in the cluster, no ipv6 will mean no access to the build log in case of failures. 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 first turn it on by default everywhere and then drop the option entirely. Best regards, Bapt signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
* 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 decree, > not the tehchies' (come to think of it, I don't think they *had* a techie > department). Roll the lawyer jokes... It's a big and diverse planet out there. In my 40+ years career I've used, implemented and deployed many different networking systems. Most of them are gone now, just IP (v4 and v6) remains. And use is slowly shifting from IPv4 to IPv6 now. > [..] > If you've ever tried to grok the IPv6 spec, your brain will explode... Must have happened to me some 20 years ago then. Probably the reason why I rarely get a head ache :-) Wolfgang ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 of it, I don't think they *had* a techie department). Roll the lawyer jokes... My router tries IPv6 first, but inevitably falls back to IPv4; IPv6 is a camel i.e. a horse designed by a committee. If you've ever tried to grok the IPv6 spec, your brain will explode... -- Dave ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 is more widely used than 2012. So I >> wonder if IPV6 option is still necessary. >> If you use official packages then you always use IPv6-enabled >> binaries. And even if you build packages by yourself you still use >> IPv6-enabled ones unless you disable IPV6 option. So I think at most >> only a few people uses IPv6-disabled packages. >> Are there anybody who still disables IPV6 option for some serious >> reason such as working around IPv6-related problem? If there aren't >> then I think it's time to remove IPV6 option from ports framework. > 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. If you connect from a typical end user site to a website on my company, if you go via IPv4 your packets will go through NAT at your CPE, quite possibly NATted to IPv6, going through another NAT at the exit routers of your provider and arrive at an reverse proxy at my site being proxied to IPv6 finally reaching the website which is running on a IPv6 only jail. Thats because neither your typical DSL or mobile provider nor my webhosting company has enough IPv4 addresses to hand out a globally routable address to all nodes. An IPv6 connection would be end-to-end. So, you don't *need* IPv6. But you might *want* to have it anyway. Wolfgang ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 is still necessary. If you use official packages then you always use IPv6-enabled binaries. And even if you build packages by yourself you still use IPv6-enabled ones unless you disable IPV6 option. So I think at most only a few people uses IPv6-disabled packages. Are there anybody who still disables IPV6 option for some serious reason such as working around IPv6-related problem? If there aren't then I think it's time to remove IPV6 option from ports framework. 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. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 IPV6 option is still necessary. > > If you use official packages then you always use IPv6-enabled > binaries. And even if you build packages by yourself you still use > IPv6-enabled ones unless you disable IPV6 option. So I think at most > only a few people uses IPv6-disabled packages. > > Are there anybody who still disables IPV6 option for some serious > reason such as working around IPv6-related problem? If there aren't > then I think it's time to remove IPV6 option from ports framework. Think about embedded systems designed for internal use mostly/only (limited or no global connectivity) with very constrained space for a code. Ability to reduce code bloat is good thing. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Is IPV6 option still necessary?
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 packages then you always use IPv6-enabled binaries. And even if you build packages by yourself you still use IPv6-enabled ones unless you disable IPV6 option. So I think at most only a few people uses IPv6-disabled packages. Are there anybody who still disables IPV6 option for some serious reason such as working around IPv6-related problem? If there aren't then I think it's time to remove IPV6 option from ports framework. Best Regards. --- Yasuhiro KIMURA ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
