On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 03:48:47PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
now that we have an uncontaminated, err, inet6-free system by default,
IFXF_NOINET6 just doesn't make sense any more.
fully go for no inet6 by default, get rid of the IFXF_NOINET6 guarded
attachments etc.
introduce IFAFATTACH and
* Stefan Sperling s...@openbsd.org [2014-07-15 11:06]:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 03:48:47PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
now that we have an uncontaminated, err, inet6-free system by default,
IFXF_NOINET6 just doesn't make sense any more.
fully go for no inet6 by default, get rid of the
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:15:12PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
I'm slightly undecided on whether this should make this release or
not...
In that situation, I usually decide that the risk won't outweigh
the benefits of just waiting for a while. No change means nobody
can get hurt.
* Stefan Sperling s...@openbsd.org [2014-07-15 12:35]:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:15:12PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
I'm slightly undecided on whether this should make this release or
not...
In that situation, I usually decide that the risk won't outweigh
the benefits of just waiting for
now that we have an uncontaminated, err, inet6-free system by default,
IFXF_NOINET6 just doesn't make sense any more.
fully go for no inet6 by default, get rid of the IFXF_NOINET6 guarded
attachments etc.
introduce IFAFATTACH and IFAFDETACH ioctls. note that they are NOT
inet6 specific; the kernel
