Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> writes: > Removing the sysctl should be very pretty safe as far as ports goes (I > did wonder if thing s might read the sysctl and change behaviour but it > seems that's not the case). Looks like only nsh will break from doing > that and it's easily fixed.
I fear that this is only creating a source of make-work for porters. - What will happen if we remove the sysctl? Some external software will not compile. - What will happen next? Add #ifdefs around each unguarded use of IPV6_V6ONLY in the ports tree. Submit that upstream. - What is the gain? None, even if the patch gets pushed upstream. *We will just succeed in adding more #ifdefs in the ecosystem*, to all software that use IPV6_V6ONLY, for a good (disabling v4-mapped) or bad (relying on v4-mapped) purpose. The real problem with IPV6_V6ONLY is that some people write code assuming they can set IPV6_V6ONLY==0 on their socket, and use a single socket for both v4 and v6. Some of them will not listen to our point of view, and will just ignore the fact that their software doesn't work as designed on OpenBSD. Whatever. Some others may listen, and that's where we can help, by giving pointers or even patches. That's something we can - and should - already do. As much as I'd like what IPV6_V6ONLY had never existed*, I don't see the point of removing the sysctl in OpenBSD. * who wants to take http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-02 out of its "draft" status? -- jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
