>I'm volunteering for this job. I know that other people have already
>expressed interest in such a task. Can we please postpone
>
> ifp->if_xflags |= IFXF_NOINET6;
>
>until the situation is more clear? I think 5.6 is a safe bet.
No. Apparently you are the only one who keeps postponing action
j...@wxcvbn.org (Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas) writes:
> Henning Brauer writes:
>
>> since no consensus could be found yet for a new command line option to
>> ifconfig, heck, not even about wether it is needed, I propose this for
>> now.
>
> I didn't reply to your proposal but since you've just commi
Henning Brauer writes:
> since no consensus could be found yet for a new command line option to
> ifconfig, heck, not even about wether it is needed, I propose this for
> now.
I didn't reply to your proposal but since you've just committed the
ifconfig part, I think I should chime in. Our IPv6
Penned by Henning Brauer on 20140608 10:14.46, we have:
| since no consensus could be found yet for a new command line option to
| ifconfig, heck, not even about wether it is needed, I propose this for
| now.
|
| 1) make "ifconfig inet6 eui64" reset the NOINET6 flag
| unconditionally, so a link-l
On 8 June 2014 11:14, Henning Brauer wrote:
> since no consensus could be found yet for a new command line option to
> ifconfig, heck, not even about wether it is needed, I propose this for
> now.
>
> 1) make "ifconfig inet6 eui64" reset the NOINET6 flag
> unconditionally, so a link-local will be
since no consensus could be found yet for a new command line option to
ifconfig, heck, not even about wether it is needed, I propose this for
now.
1) make "ifconfig inet6 eui64" reset the NOINET6 flag
unconditionally, so a link-local will be assigned if there isn't one
yet.
Index: sbin/ifconfig
>> * Mark Kettenis [2014-05-15 00:15]:
>>> I don't think this is a good idea; didn't we establish the other day
>>> that "ifconfig eui64" already did what your +inet6 does?
>>
>> almost, it's ifconfig inet6 eui64 - but that isn't all THAT
>> intuitive. I like +inet6 as the opposite of -inet6.
>
* Claudio Jeker [2014-05-16 08:06]:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> > When I travel between networks.. at home with rtsol capable networks ..
> > and at e.g. a library that does not have native IPv6 .. I find it invaluable
> > to 'zzz' then upon resume 'ifconfig
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:43:52AM -0500, Todd T. Fries wrote:
> Penned by Henning Brauer on 20140516 0:26.37, we have:
> | * Claudio Jeker [2014-05-15 09:33]:
> | > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:29:20PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> | > > so as discussed recently having the inet6 link-local addrs
Penned by Henning Brauer on 20140516 0:26.37, we have:
| * Claudio Jeker [2014-05-15 09:33]:
| > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:29:20PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
| > > so as discussed recently having the inet6 link-local addrs on every
| > > interface by default is stupid and a security risk.
| >
* Claudio Jeker [2014-05-15 09:33]:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:29:20PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > so as discussed recently having the inet6 link-local addrs on every
> > interface by default is stupid and a security risk.
> >
> > this diff fixes that. well, really two independent parts.
>
* Claudio Jeker [2014-05-15 09:42]:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 05:48:16AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Reyk Flöter [2014-05-15 01:04]:
> > > > On 15.05.2014, at 00:46, Henning Brauer
> > > > wrote:
> > > > * Mark Kettenis [2014-05-15 00:15]:
> > > >> I don't think this is a good idea; did
* Todd T. Fries [2014-05-15 06:29]:
> Penned by Henning Brauer on 20140514 22:48.16, we have:
> | * Reyk Flöter [2014-05-15 01:04]:
> | > > On 15.05.2014, at 00:46, Henning Brauer
> wrote:
> | > > * Mark Kettenis [2014-05-15 00:15]:
> | > >> I don't think this is a good idea; didn't we establi
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:24:57AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 06:58:53AM +0200, J?r?mie Courr?ges-Anglas wrote:
> > Paul de Weerd writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > This makes a whole lot of sense to me. Please make OpenBSD the first
> > > OS to do (this part of) v6 in a
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 06:58:53AM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
> Paul de Weerd writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > This makes a whole lot of sense to me. Please make OpenBSD the first
> > OS to do (this part of) v6 in a sensible way.
>
> Actually that makes me laugh. Sensible, weeeh. Let's pr
On 2014/05/15 09:41, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 05:48:16AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Reyk Flöter [2014-05-15 01:04]:
> > > > On 15.05.2014, at 00:46, Henning Brauer
> > > > wrote:
> > > > * Mark Kettenis [2014-05-15 00:15]:
> > > >> I don't think this is a good idea
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 05:48:16AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Reyk Flöter [2014-05-15 01:04]:
> > > On 15.05.2014, at 00:46, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > > * Mark Kettenis [2014-05-15 00:15]:
> > >> I don't think this is a good idea; didn't we establish the other day
> > >> that "ifconfig eu
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:29:20PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> so as discussed recently having the inet6 link-local addrs on every
> interface by default is stupid and a security risk.
>
> this diff fixes that. well, really two independent parts.
> one: set the NOINET6 flag by default on each a
Paul de Weerd writes:
[...]
> This makes a whole lot of sense to me. Please make OpenBSD the first
> OS to do (this part of) v6 in a sensible way.
Actually that makes me laugh. Sensible, weeeh. Let's protect our users
from the dangers of IPv6 link-local addresses! Wait, what users are we
ta
Penned by Henning Brauer on 20140514 22:48.16, we have:
| * Reyk Flöter [2014-05-15 01:04]:
| > > On 15.05.2014, at 00:46, Henning Brauer wrote:
| > > * Mark Kettenis [2014-05-15 00:15]:
| > >> I don't think this is a good idea; didn't we establish the other day
| > >> that "ifconfig eui64" alr
* Reyk Flöter [2014-05-15 01:04]:
> > On 15.05.2014, at 00:46, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Mark Kettenis [2014-05-15 00:15]:
> >> I don't think this is a good idea; didn't we establish the other day
> >> that "ifconfig eui64" already did what your +inet6 does?
> > almost, it's ifconfig inet6 e
On 2014/05/14 23:47, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2014/05/15 00:13, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 23:29:20 +0200
> > > From: Henning Brauer
> >
> > > this diff fixes that. well, really two independent parts.
> > > one: set the NOINET6 flag by default on each and every interfac
On 05/15/14 00:48, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Alexander Bluhm [2014-05-15 00:15]:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:29:20PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
so as discussed recently having the inet6 link-local addrs on every
interface by default is stupid and a security risk.
Connecting a computer to the i
> On 15.05.2014, at 00:46, Henning Brauer wrote:
>
> * Mark Kettenis [2014-05-15 00:15]:
>> I don't think this is a good idea; didn't we establish the other day
>> that "ifconfig eui64" already did what your +inet6 does?
>
> almost, it's ifconfig inet6 eui64 - but that isn't all THAT
> intui
* Alexander Bluhm [2014-05-15 00:15]:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:29:20PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > so as discussed recently having the inet6 link-local addrs on every
> > interface by default is stupid and a security risk.
> Connecting a computer to the internet is a security risk.
> IP
On 2014/05/15 00:13, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 23:29:20 +0200
> > From: Henning Brauer
>
> > this diff fixes that. well, really two independent parts.
> > one: set the NOINET6 flag by default on each and every interface.
>
> ok on that bit
>
> > two: implement "ifconfig +
* Mark Kettenis [2014-05-15 00:15]:
> I don't think this is a good idea; didn't we establish the other day
> that "ifconfig eui64" already did what your +inet6 does?
almost, it's ifconfig inet6 eui64 - but that isn't all THAT
intuitive. I like +inet6 as the opposite of -inet6.
--
Henning Brau
On 14 May 2014 18:14, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:29:20PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
>> so as discussed recently having the inet6 link-local addrs on every
>> interface by default is stupid and a security risk.
>
> Connecting a computer to the internet is a security risk.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 00:14, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:29:20PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
>> so as discussed recently having the inet6 link-local addrs on every
>> interface by default is stupid and a security risk.
>
> Connecting a computer to the internet is a secur
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:29:20PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> so as discussed recently having the inet6 link-local addrs on every
> interface by default is stupid and a security risk.
Connecting a computer to the internet is a security risk.
IPv4 is on by default, and so IPv6 should be on by
> Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 23:29:20 +0200
> From: Henning Brauer
> this diff fixes that. well, really two independent parts.
> one: set the NOINET6 flag by default on each and every interface.
ok on that bit
> two: implement "ifconfig +inet6" to turn inet6 on and assign
> the link-local addr.
I
On 2014/05/15 00:02, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> Hi Henning,
>
> Thanks, I really like this.
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:29:20PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> | the only use case that needs config adoption: people ONLY using
> | link-local, they will need to put +inet6 in the corresponding
> | hos
Hi Henning,
Thanks, I really like this.
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:29:20PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
| the only use case that needs config adoption: people ONLY using
| link-local, they will need to put +inet6 in the corresponding
| hostname.if file.
People that set net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv
so as discussed recently having the inet6 link-local addrs on every
interface by default is stupid and a security risk.
this diff fixes that. well, really two independent parts.
one: set the NOINET6 flag by default on each and every interface.
two: implement "ifconfig +inet6" to turn inet6 on and
34 matches
Mail list logo
