Hi,
On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 03:04:04PM -0600, so...@guug.org wrote:
> Do not enforce IPv6!
>
> Last time I enforce it on end users was a mess, really, I was an IPv6
> enthusiast until I had to step back and turn it off. DJ Bernstein and
> others were plain right:
>
> http://weblog.kernelcode.co
Do not enforce IPv6!
Last time I enforce it on end users was a mess, really, I was an IPv6
enthusiast until I had to step back and turn it off. DJ Bernstein and
others were plain right:
http://weblog.kernelcode.com/2010/02/25/ipv6-is-a-failure-stop-wasting-everyones-time/
-
Otto (solca) Solares
On 2011-05-03 10:03 PM, Philip Prindeville wrote:
On 5/3/11 11:20 AM, Anders wrote:
On 04/28/11 18:29, Linus Lüssing wrote:
In my opinion, that should be okay, but I'm also using IPv6
regularly. What would be the alternative, installing the bridge as
a kernel module instead of kernel built
On 5/3/11 11:20 AM, Anders wrote:
> On 04/28/11 18:29, Linus Lüssing wrote:
>> In my opinion, that should be okay, but I'm also using IPv6
>> regularly. What would be the alternative, installing the bridge as
>> a kernel module instead of kernel built-in as it is currently done?
>>
>> Hmm, if no o
On 2011-05-03 9:13 PM, Thomas Heil wrote:
Hi,
Am 03.05.2011 21:07, schrieb Felix Fietkau:
On 2011-04-21 5:43 AM, Jonas Gorski wrote:
2.6.38 introduced a dependency from bridge to IPv6. Since IPv6 support
will probably get much more important in the next years anyway, it
should
be OK to jus
Hi,
Am 03.05.2011 21:07, schrieb Felix Fietkau:
> On 2011-04-21 5:43 AM, Jonas Gorski wrote:
>> 2.6.38 introduced a dependency from bridge to IPv6. Since IPv6 support
>> will probably get much more important in the next years anyway, it
>> should
>> be OK to just include it in the kernel for 2.6.38
On 2011-04-21 5:43 AM, Jonas Gorski wrote:
2.6.38 introduced a dependency from bridge to IPv6. Since IPv6 support
will probably get much more important in the next years anyway, it should
be OK to just include it in the kernel for 2.6.38 and later.
I think we should fix the underlying issue that
On 04/28/11 18:29, Linus Lüssing wrote:
> In my opinion, that should be okay, but I'm also using IPv6
> regularly. What would be the alternative, installing the bridge as
> a kernel module instead of kernel built-in as it is currently done?
>
> Hmm, if no one is screaming about any space issues an
On 04/28/11 18:29, Linus Lüssing wrote:
> In my opinion, that should be okay, but I'm also using IPv6
> regularly. What would be the alternative, installing the bridge as
> a kernel module instead of kernel built-in as it is currently done?
>
> Hmm, if no one is screaming about any space issues an
In my opinion, that should be okay, but I'm also using IPv6
regularly. What would be the alternative, installing the bridge as
a kernel module instead of kernel built-in as it is currently done?
Hmm, if no one is screaming about any space issues and not wanting
to have IPv6 installed, I guess it s
2.6.38 introduced a dependency from bridge to IPv6. Since IPv6 support
will probably get much more important in the next years anyway, it should
be OK to just include it in the kernel for 2.6.38 and later.
Signed-off-by: Jonas Gorski
---
package/kernel/modules/001-depends.mk |9 +
pa
11 matches
Mail list logo
