On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Hiroki Sato <h...@freebsd.org> wrote: > Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> wrote > in <4b945aa7.6070...@freebsd.org>: > > do> As we've previously discussed, I would like to un-obsolete ipv6_enable, > do> and return it to the status of being the knob that actually controls > do> whether or not we configure IPv6. My understanding is that the consensus > do> is in agreement with this change, however I'm posting my proposed patch > do> (minus the rc.conf(5) change) just in case. If you have any objection, > do> please speak up sooner rather than later. > > I do not think we reached the consensus on reverting the change. In > my understanding there are people who want $ipv6_enable but the > reason why is they just feel they need a way to disable the > functionality. > > The current implementation is based on a concept of "to enable IPv6 > all you need is simply adding an IPv6 GUA to the interface", which is > the same as what we have for IPv4 configuration, and it has an > additional seatbelt to prevent unexpected IPv6 communication when > ipv6_prefer=NO (default). > > The $ipv6_enable does not disable the functionality actually contrary > to people's expectation, and another problem is that what will be > done by such per-protocol *_enable knobs are not intuitive. After > changing $ipv6_enable=YES (or NO), what rc.d script should be invoked > to reflect the change, for example? What to be done is nothing but > configuring NICs, routes, and network options in the same way as for > IPv4. Because we have IPv6-enabled kernel as the GENERIC, some basic > initialization is needed even if the sysadmin do not want to use IPv6 > at all. I think we do not need to have $ipv6_enable since we do not > have $ipv4_enable.
The question is what is the desired end-state for the rc.conf configuration of ipv6 ? Do we want to have a per-interface setting required to enable ipv6 SLAAC ? Do we want to have a global setting for ipv6 SLAAC ? Or do we want to choose sane defaults and allow the user to over-ride on both a global default, and a per-interface basis ? So, in the 8.0-RELEASE code (and previous TTBOMK), both IPv4 DHCP and IPv6 SLAAC required manual enabling, although it was inconsistent in that one was global (IPV6 accept_rtadv), and one was per-interface (IPv4 DHCP). Some of this has already started to change in -current. Question 1) Based upon history, sane defaults would be do nothing (NO DHCPv4, NO IPv6 accept_rtadv). Do you agree with this as the continued defaults ? Question 2) Assuming that people do desire consistency with allowing for both a global, and a per-interface setting, do you agree with having a global default for DHCPv4 (dhcpv4_default_enable), and for IPv6 slaac/accept_rtadv (ipv6-slaac_default_enable), and the per-interface DHCPv4 (ifconfig_IF0="dhcp") aka a meta configuration variable, and a per-interface IPv6 slaac (ifconfig_IF0="slaac") aka a meta configuration variable. Note, it is trivial to allow the meta configuration variable to be allowed on EITHER ifconfig_IF0, or ifconfig_IF0_ipv6, etc, so that is not really germain to the discussion at this point. Do people understand what I am proposing here, or do you want me to put together a diff with an implementation to properly review ? The disable side of the over-rides would be something like: NOAUTO, NODHCP, NOSLAAC meta configuration variables for the per-interface configuration. Do people understand what I am proposing here, or do you want me to put together a diff with an implementation to properly review ? I already have some of it working in a separate experiment for adding DHCPv6 configurations. ---Dave Horn _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
