Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this, had a lot of other
pressing issues. Short version, I think you're taking the wrong approach
here.
Longer version, I'm going to be posting to -current shortly to ask for
opinions on what the defaults should be. My understanding from the last
go-round
for brevity sake
>> dh> Question 2) Assuming that people do desire consistency with allowing
>> dh> for both a global, and a per-interface setting, do you agree with
>> dh> having a global default for DHCPv4 (dhcpv4_default_enable), and for
>> dh> IPv6 slaac/accept_rtadv (ipv6-slaac_default_enabl
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> David Horn wrote
> in <25ff90d61003082037v3519995bx7e119e9d14143...@mail.gmail.com>:
>
> dh> The question is what is the desired end-state for the rc.conf
> dh> configuration of ipv6 ?
> dh>
> dh> Do we want to have a per-interface setting re
David Horn wrote
in <25ff90d61003082037v3519995bx7e119e9d14143...@mail.gmail.com>:
dh> The question is what is the desired end-state for the rc.conf
dh> configuration of ipv6 ?
dh>
dh> Do we want to have a per-interface setting required to enable ipv6 SLAAC ?
dh> Do we want to have a global set
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Doug Barton 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
Doug Barton 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 agreem
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010, Doug Barton wrote:
Hi,
As we've previously discussed, I would like to un-obsolete ipv6_enable,
and return it to the status of being the knob that actually controls
whether or not we configure IPv6. My understanding is that the consensus
is in agreement with this change, howe
On 3/8/2010 5:43 AM, jhell wrote:
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:26, dougb@ wrote:
Oops, missed one.
Doug
;) Hi Doug& everyone,
Personally I think that ipv6_enable could be skipped(removed) all-in-all.
Here is my reason:
It seems needless to have if, the value of ipv6_network_interfaces could
j
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 21:26, dougb@ wrote:
Oops, missed one.
Doug
;) Hi Doug & everyone,
Personally I think that ipv6_enable could be skipped(removed) all-in-all.
Here is my reason:
It seems needless to have if, the value of ipv6_network_interfaces could
just be checked against to see if i
Oops, missed one.
Doug
--
... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
-- Propellerheads
Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
a domain name makeover!http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Index: network.subr
As we've previously discussed, I would like to un-obsolete ipv6_enable,
and return it to the status of being the knob that actually controls
whether or not we configure IPv6. My understanding is that the consensus
is in agreement with this change, however I'm posting my proposed patch
(minus the rc
11 matches
Mail list logo
