As somone who has paid out of his own pocket for ARIN access to allocate v6 space for things, I can assure you I am not anti-v6.
What I am is anti-I-am-a-v6-zealot-and-submit-diffs-with-no-thought-to-how-everyone-but-my-own-setup-works-and-because-I-am-a-zealot-I-am-right-until-proven-wrong. No. You can't just break how everyone else works to make your life better, or get the mystic portal here sooner. People who really want to promote v6 should be testing their diffs on a v4 only setup first. and verify they do no harm or make things better - not saying "this makes v6 better can everyone else who doesn't use it think of a downside" - that's not anti v6 - that's anti-bad-attitude. Sorry too many people: 1) have v4 only setups because they have no choice 2) have v4 only because their v6 connectivity is crap. 3) have v4 only setups because they have a choice and don't want that much extra code surface exposed in a security sensitive environment. All those reasons will be valid for a long time. long enough that I bet philip's time_t fixes will be tested for real before they are not. It doesn't mean we don't want good v6 - it means we do not want v6 at the expense of such things, and the burden is on the v6 diff submitter to prove it, not tell everyone else it's the way and they should prove otherwise. On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Kenneth Westerback <kwesterb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2 May 2014 13:24, Bob Beck <b...@obtuse.com> wrote: >> Honestly folks, I'm sick of the attitude of "The future is nigh, the >> mystic portal awaits! V6 is coming!" as an excuse for >> we *MUST* change things related to this. >> >> We've been hearing the mystic portal awaits for 15 years - and yet >> MANY of us in MANY parts of the world still can not >> get reasonable v6 connectivity - or it's is substantially worse than >> v4 for what we normally do. It's not our fault, >> our providers are useless. >> >> I have no problem with having changes to make V6 more usable. but >> here's what I have a problem with. >> >> 1) Here is wonderful V6 diff - many standards idiots of the same type >> that designed V6 say this is good. Can you >> show me a down side? >> >> My answer to this is simple. No.. We've been bit before. You want me >> to pay attention to this discussion and encourage >> that a diff goes in do this instead: >> >> 2) Here is a diff that makes V6 better - I'm not talking to you about >> the standards bodies related to V6 because they are all >> ivory tower idiots, but it *does* make things better because I've >> tested it under *these* v6 scenarios and hit helps *AND* I tested it >> under the default and these normal scenarios WITH ONLY V4, and NOTHING >> SLOWED DOWN OR GOT FUCKED UP. >> >> Having now experienced more than enough "show me a down side" V6 diffs >> in the tree over the years, I do not want to >> "show a down side" - PROVE TO ME THERE ISN'T ONE, or go away. >> > > Careful Bob, or you will be lumped in with Theo and I as roadblocks to > IPv6 adoption! > > .... Ken > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas >> <j...@wxcvbn.org> wrote: >>> Paul de Weerd <we...@weirdnet.nl> writes: >>> >>>> On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 05:35:13PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote: >>>> | > If you're running on a host without IPv6, why would you want >>>> | > getaddrinfo() to return any IPv6 results? What good would it do to you? >>>> | >>>> | What's a regular OpenBSD host with no IPv6? I'd assume that it is >>>> | a host that can perform IPv6 connections to ::1 / localhost and reach >>>> | its neighbors through link-local addresses. >>>> >>>> Why would you expect to be able to reach your neighbors through >>>> link-local addresses if you have "no IPv6" (which I take to mean 'no >>>> *configured* IPv6', please correct me if I'm wrong here)? >>> >>> I don't make a big difference between automatically or "manually" >>> configured addresses. They're here and supposed to be usable for >>> whatever purpose, limited only by their intrinsic limitations. >>> >>>> I believe your expectation here is wrong (although it is the current >>>> state of IPv6 on OpenBSD). Can you explain why you disagree? >>> >>> Not really, I'm puzzled by your question. It works and has always >>> worked but I shouldn't expect them to work... >>> >>>> (sorry to hijack the thread, your remark piqued my interest) >>>> >>>> Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd >>> >>> -- >>> jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE >>> >>
