Hello,
I'm afraid I disagree with a few of the points you raise.
JoaoBR wrote:
even if ipv6 is a real situation it is not the standard, ipv4 is, then, even
if ipv6 is some network's standard it is not a global standard, ipv4 is
certainly then, it makes no sense that ipv6 is the default, neither for
applications nor for the kernel
Actually, it makes perfect sense that IPv6 is enabled in GENERIC when
one considers that the world as a whole is gradually moving towards it,
and especially so when FreeBSD's direct competitors in the operating
systems space are doing the same.
also certain then is that ipv6 is an ADDITIONAL option and who wants it, needs
to enable it, either for applications as for the kernel, not the inverse
situation as today
Again, I strongly disagree with this point, see above.
but this is not only a FBSD wiredness but a general confusion ...
but so far as it matters to FBSD it is funny how many core/OS parts simply
ignore NO_INET6 even if set ...
What is regrettable is that there has been a blurring of boundaries as
you describe, from an architect's point of view. However, pointing it
out in an email like this does nothing to change or improve the situation.
Surely it would be more constructive for all to point out exactly where
the INET vs INET6 creep is emerging, catalogue it, and proactively
communicate it to the people involved, or better still, submit patches
and collaborate on fixing the issue? Just a thought.
Best regards,
BMS
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
