On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, peter green wrote: > would it not be easier to have a single codebase and have each network > #define out the features they don't require rather than everyone haveing to > make a patch work against a radically changed codebase
Kev weighed in with the Undernet viewpoint on this. Speaking as a coder for one of the other large ircu networks, one major reason we apply patches is that we want to roll out new features while ircu is in feature freeze or alpha development stages. Even if we are satisfied with the stability of the patches, other networks may not be. > secondly i have heard it mentioed that undernet are considering supporting > ipv6 > > the big danger with ipv6 is that with almost every end-site being allocated > a /48 regardless of size implementing a workable clone control policy will > be virtually impossible If every end user were allocated a /48, clone control would not be a big problem: just ignore the last 48 bits of the address. The harder problem is that some end users are allocated a /48 and some are allocated a /64. Assuming everyone has a /48 allows for a lot of potential abuse by /64 users, and assuming everyone has a /64 is unfair to large numbers of /48 users. Perhaps there will be a consistent way to query the length of the end user's address block (easier to parse and/or faster to look up than WHOIS responses). Entrope
