[ snipped ]
On 04/05/10 08:52, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
> I have no idea (unless I'll read them) about the guts of various shell
> function magic we use to configure interfaces, and I heck do not care
> about where it's called autoblah_foo or zigbangbusheek as none of our
> users does, so I'll igno
On 04/04/10 22:49, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote
> in <4bb95564.1070...@freebsd.org>:
>
> do> On 04/04/10 02:41, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> do> > "Kevin Oberman" wrote
> do> > in <20100404053352.e6f751c...@ptavv.es.net>:
> do> >
> do> > ob> The use of FACILITY_enable in rc.conf predates /
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, jhell wrote:
Hi,
reading the thread in thread view I had wondered why your reply had
been ignored until I realized that it was the last to come in. So
I'll use it to reply to, especially as I like it.
I have no idea (unless I'll read them) about the guts of various shell
fu
John Hay wrote
in <20100405083056.ga8...@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za>:
jh> These questions actually start more questions for me. :-) Maybe we should
jh> also think from the user perspective and list a few use cases and what a
jh> user need to put in rc.conf to make that work?
jh>
jh> Your normal de
On 04/05/2010 00:21, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:13:40 -0700
>> From: Doug Barton
>>
>> On 04/04/10 02:41, Hiroki Sato wrote:
>>> "Kevin Oberman" wrote
>>> in <20100404053352.e6f751c...@ptavv.es.net>:
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I think this is converging on a good, functional s
Doug Barton wrote
in <4bb95564.1070...@freebsd.org>:
do> On 04/04/10 02:41, Hiroki Sato wrote:
do> > "Kevin Oberman" wrote
do> > in <20100404053352.e6f751c...@ptavv.es.net>:
do> >
do> > ob> The use of FACILITY_enable in rc.conf predates /etc/rc.d scripts and I
do> > ob> see no reason not to
On 04/04/10 22:42, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote
> in <4bb7e224.6020...@freebsd.org>:
>
> If people want to disable IPv6 GUA assignment in per-AF manner, it
> should be done by per-AF global knobs for $ifconfig_* because the GUA
> assignment involves $ifconfig_* knobs only for the u
I think it's clear at this point that you and I have some pretty serious
disagreements about how this thing should look. I think that's
unfortunate, since you have a lot of good ideas, I just think some of
them are wrong. :) Seriously though, I hope we can find a way to come to
agreement.
I'm goin
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 02:42:52PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote
> in <4bb7e224.6020...@freebsd.org>:
>
> do> As we've discussed previously, you and I have a lot of disagreement on
> do> some of these principles. I'm going to outline my responses in some
> do> detail, however I'
Doug Barton wrote
in <4bb95564.1070...@freebsd.org>:
do> On 04/04/10 02:41, Hiroki Sato wrote:
do> > "Kevin Oberman" wrote
do> > in <20100404053352.e6f751c...@ptavv.es.net>:
do> >
do> > ob> The use of FACILITY_enable in rc.conf predates /etc/rc.d scripts and I
do> > ob> see no reason not to
On 04/04/10 23:01, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
No, my intension is not to compare IPv4 and IPv6 here. We have never
enable L3 address autoconfiguration without explicit configuration
before. This is reasonable and should be kept for IPv6, too.
>>>
>>> Agree 100%. Having IPv6 SLAAC
> >> No, my intension is not to compare IPv4 and IPv6 here. We have never
> >> enable L3 address autoconfiguration without explicit configuration
> >> before. This is reasonable and should be kept for IPv6, too.
> >
> > Agree 100%. Having IPv6 SLAAC as the default is a bad idea.
> >
> > On t
Doug Barton wrote
in <4bb7e224.6020...@freebsd.org>:
do> As we've discussed previously, you and I have a lot of disagreement on
do> some of these principles. I'm going to outline my responses in some
do> detail, however I'm also interested in what others have to say since I'd
do> ultimately lik
> Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:13:40 -0700
> From: Doug Barton
>
> On 04/04/10 02:41, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> > "Kevin Oberman" wrote
> > in <20100404053352.e6f751c...@ptavv.es.net>:
> >
> > ob> The use of FACILITY_enable in rc.conf predates /etc/rc.d scripts and I
> > ob> see no reason not to use
On 04/04/10 02:51, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
>> No, my intension is not to compare IPv4 and IPv6 here. We have never
>> enable L3 address autoconfiguration without explicit configuration
>> before. This is reasonable and should be kept for IPv6, too.
>
> Agree 100%. Having IPv6 SLAAC as the de
On 04/04/10 02:41, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> "Kevin Oberman" wrote
> in <20100404053352.e6f751c...@ptavv.es.net>:
>
> ob> The use of FACILITY_enable in rc.conf predates /etc/rc.d scripts and I
> ob> see no reason not to use them to enable or disable functionality whether
> ob> it involves a script i
Thanks for the reply, it's nice to get other viewpoints involved,
especially from those who have actual working knowledge of IPv6. I'm
going to snip the bits where we agree for ease of reading.
On 04/03/10 22:33, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:49:40 -0700
>> From: Doug Barton
>
> No, my intension is not to compare IPv4 and IPv6 here. We have never
> enable L3 address autoconfiguration without explicit configuration
> before. This is reasonable and should be kept for IPv6, too.
Agree 100%. Having IPv6 SLAAC as the default is a bad idea.
On the other hand, I *do* lik
"Kevin Oberman" wrote
in <20100404053352.e6f751c...@ptavv.es.net>:
ob> The use of FACILITY_enable in rc.conf predates /etc/rc.d scripts and I
ob> see no reason not to use them to enable or disable functionality whether
ob> it involves a script in rc.d or not. The idea is to have a clear,
ob> ob
> Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:49:40 -0700
> From: Doug Barton
> Sender: owner-freebsd-curr...@freebsd.org
>
> As we've discussed previously, you and I have a lot of disagreement on
> some of these principles. I'm going to outline my responses in some
> detail, however I'm also interested in what ot
As we've discussed previously, you and I have a lot of disagreement on
some of these principles. I'm going to outline my responses in some
detail, however I'm also interested in what others have to say since I'd
ultimately like to see some consensus from the community on how this
should be configur
Doug Barton wrote
in <4bb70e1e.3090...@freebsd.org>:
do> 1. There should be an ipv6_enable knob to easily turn IPv6 configuration
do> on and off when INET6 is in the kernel. I think the value of this kind
do> of knob is obvious, but I'd be happy to elaborate if that is necessary.
There were r
22 matches
Mail list logo
