On 2 May 2014 16:08, Paul de Weerd <we...@weirdnet.nl> wrote: > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > | * Paul de Weerd <we...@weirdnet.nl> [2014-05-02 21:20]: > | > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:53:08PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote: > | [connectivity via link-local] > | > | Not really, I'm puzzled by your question. It works and has always > | > | worked but I shouldn't expect them to work... > | > I'm puzzled by the fact it has always been this way in OpenBSD. It > | > goes against the OpenBSD philosophy. > | > | see where the v6 zealots got us? > > Well, I do consider myself an IPv6 enthusiast. Probably not a zealot; > I'm not one for zealotry myself... :) > > | > I'll try to rephrase the question: > | > > | > Why do you expect that you are accessible on IPv6 > | > when you configure an interface with IPv4? You > | > don't expect to get IPv4 connectivity when you > | > configure IPv6, do you? > | > | a very good question to ask. > | > | i wish -inet6 was default. > | > | i'll probably add a sysctl to globally nuke v6 from all interfaces > | soon. somebody pls remind me at the next hackathon. > > Well, I think -inet6 would be a good default, but I think there's more > to it. Enabling net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv should still get me a > link-local address (and, if router advertisements are present on the > local network, an autoconfigured (autoconfprivacy) address too). But > if I have multiple interfaces and configure my system for SLAAC, what > should happen? To me, it seems that accept_rtadv should be a > per-interface thing. > > Anyway, I believe at least -inet6 is a better default than the current > situation. > > Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd > > -- >>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+ > +++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-] > http://www.weirdnet.nl/ >
-inet6 as the default seems more OpenBSD'ish to me. Everything off that can be off, but not more. .... Ken
