Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 15:46 +0100, Ruben van Staveren wrote: On 5 Mar 2008, at 15:32, Mark Andrews wrote: - IPv6 provides almost no technological upgrades beyond additional address space. DHCP addressed the auto configuration feature, VPNs addressed IPsec. That extra address space really is a big advantage. It really is so much better to be able to get to machines you need to without have to manually setup application relays because you couldn't get enough address space to be able to globally address everything want to. Please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0 This song exactly explains why you should care about IPv6 :) I don't get this anti IPv6 behaviour. If people are not willing to adopt it, it will not get tested which in turn will make other people hesitating to jump on the bandwagon. Having it compiled in your system does not cause harm if you don't configure it and for everything else there are traffic filters. Just like IPv4. - Ruben Sorry to stir a hornets nest, but this[1] is why people have a distrust of IPv6. This clearly is not a failing of IPv6, but it would still catch people out who do not use IPv6, but have it enabled as part of a 'default' configuration. If you don't use something at all, the chance of it having or exposing some semi-related bug is not worth the risk. [1] http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=5422+0 +current/freebsd-announce signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
At Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:39:51 +0100, Tom Evans wrote: [1 text/plain (quoted-printable)] On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 15:46 +0100, Ruben van Staveren wrote: On 5 Mar 2008, at 15:32, Mark Andrews wrote: - IPv6 provides almost no technological upgrades beyond additional address space. DHCP addressed the auto configuration feature, VPNs addressed IPsec. That extra address space really is a big advantage. It really is so much better to be able to get to machines you need to without have to manually setup application relays because you couldn't get enough address space to be able to globally address everything want to. Please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0 This song exactly explains why you should care about IPv6 :) I don't get this anti IPv6 behaviour. If people are not willing to adopt it, it will not get tested which in turn will make other people hesitating to jump on the bandwagon. Having it compiled in your system does not cause harm if you don't configure it and for everything else there are traffic filters. Just like IPv4. - Ruben Sorry to stir a hornets nest, but this[1] is why people have a distrust of IPv6. This clearly is not a failing of IPv6, but it would still catch people out who do not use IPv6, but have it enabled as part of a 'default' configuration. If you don't use something at all, the chance of it having or exposing some semi-related bug is not worth the risk. This is now addressed in HEAD. I think we can just avoid the political issues right now. Best, George ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
Robert/All: One of my colleagues has been working on this in the background. Its not so much as a design choice that has haunted us for many years now. The stack originally was written for KAME and as morphed over time.. this is just one thing we have not fixed. Its in process.. I will check with Michael and see what h is status is on it.. Thanks R Robert Watson wrote: On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Vadim Goncharov wrote: On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:50:33 -0800; Xin LI wrote about 'Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?': I'm not interested in enabling support for IPv6 for now. When I remove INET6 from the kernel configuration, I cannot compile the kernel without disabling SCTP. With fresh 7.0-STABLE source, here's the error output (INET6 disabled, but SCTP enabled): Yes, INET6 is (currently) required if you enable SCTP. Will it be fixed? Any time soon? It's considered a bug, and hopefully it will be fixed by the SCTP maintainers soon. However, they've been fairly busy with another project so I'm not sure there's a specific timeline. I would like to see it fixed by 7.1. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Randall Stewart NSSTG - Cisco Systems Inc. 803-345-0369 or 803-317-4952 (cell) ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
Hi Mark Andrews! On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:07:56 +1100; Mark Andrews wrote about 'Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?': I'm not interested in enabling support for IPv6 for now. When I remove INET6 from the kernel configuration, I cannot compile the kernel without disabling SCTP. With fresh 7.0-STABLE source, here's the error output (INET6 disabled, but SCTP enabled): Yes, INET6 is (currently) required if you enable SCTP. Will it be fixed? Any time soon? It would be better to remove the option all together. IPv6 is no longer a protocol under development. There is no need to make it optional any more. Having it there really sends the wrong signal. I strongly disagree. I want to keep my machines without IPv6 as long as possible due to protocol (not implementation) architectural bugs. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Vadim Goncharov wrote: On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:50:33 -0800; Xin LI wrote about 'Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?': I'm not interested in enabling support for IPv6 for now. When I remove INET6 from the kernel configuration, I cannot compile the kernel without disabling SCTP. With fresh 7.0-STABLE source, here's the error output (INET6 disabled, but SCTP enabled): Yes, INET6 is (currently) required if you enable SCTP. Will it be fixed? Any time soon? It's considered a bug, and hopefully it will be fixed by the SCTP maintainers soon. However, they've been fairly busy with another project so I'm not sure there's a specific timeline. I would like to see it fixed by 7.1. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Mark Andrews wrote: It would be better to remove the option all together. IPv6 is no longer a protocol under development. There is no need to make it optional any more. Having it there really sends the wrong signal. With all due respect, let's face a couple of facts. IPv4 is going to be the primary protocol for several years to come. There are a few critical reasons, and few people like to point out just how naked the emperor is: - Providing IPv6 currently (and for the forseeable future) provides no return on investment (ROI). Service Providers can't make more money with IPv6, businesses do not get any sort of competitive or perceived advantage from deploying IPv6, and end users certainly don't want to deal with it. - To route IPv6 with the same features and packet forwarding rate as with IPv4, nearly every network will be forced to purchase expensive router upgrades with no other real benefit beyond IPv6 connectivity (which again provides no ROI to justify the capex). Nobody is going to do forklift upgrades just for IPv6, but as routers get normally upgraded IPv6 functionality will indeed slowly expand. - IPv6 provides almost no technological upgrades beyond additional address space. DHCP addressed the auto configuration feature, VPNs addressed IPsec. - IPv4 address spaces will eventually transition to a market commodity model, providing a financial incentive that will encourage significant optimization and provide motive for providers to audit their allocations, and for businesses to part with IP space that they no longer properly utilize. The cost of acquiring IPv4 space will be less than the cost of upgrading to IPv6. Therefore, given a lack of ROI or sufficient technological motivation, and given the significant potential for optimization of existing IPv4 space both via technology and financial incentive, I see a minimum of five years before IPv6 is common. In the meantime, I'd like to only enable IPv6 on IPv6 enabled networks. Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 --- ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
O.K., have snipped all the above IPv4 stuff, which actually seems quite reaosnable (though appears to foorget about STF), but this line... In the meantime, I'd like to only enable IPv6 on IPv6 enabled networks. ...I fail to see how not wanting to enable it leads to you wanting to remove it from the kernel entirely ? That is the bit I don't understand about all of this discussion. Theres probably hundereds of bits in the kernel you havent enabled and don't use, why specificly do you want an option to take IPV6 out ? I am genuinely piuzzled - why isn't ipv6_enabled=NO sufficient ? That's what I do on IPv4 networks and it works fine for me. -pete. ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Pete French wrote: O.K., have snipped all the above IPv4 stuff, which actually seems quite reaosnable (though appears to foorget about STF), but this line... In the meantime, I'd like to only enable IPv6 on IPv6 enabled networks. ...I fail to see how not wanting to enable it leads to you wanting to remove it from the kernel entirely ? That is the bit I don't understand about all of this discussion. Theres probably hundereds of bits in the kernel you havent enabled and don't use, why specificly do you want an option to take IPV6 out ? I am genuinely piuzzled - why isn't ipv6_enabled=NO sufficient ? That's what I do on IPv4 networks and it works fine for me. That's actually a good point. I've had a hard time shedding my trim everything I don't use out of the kernel mentality over the years. Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 --- ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008, Mark Andrews wrote: It would be better to remove the option all together. IPv6 is no longer a protocol under development. There is no need to make it optional any more. Having it there really sends the wrong signal. With all due respect, let's face a couple of facts. IPv4 is going to be the primary protocol for several years to come. There are a few critical reasons, and few people like to point out just how naked the emperor is: - Providing IPv6 currently (and for the forseeable future) provides no return on investment (ROI). Service Providers can't make more money with IPv6, businesses do not get any sort of competitive or perceived advantage from deploying IPv6, and end users certainly don't want to deal with it. Service providers get paid to push IP packets. They shouldn't care which protocol version is in the header. What they should be worried about is ensuring that they are here in 4 years time. It actually takes time to fill in the missing pieces and the only way to find the missing pieces is to bring up IPv6 networks. Most end users won't even know that they are running IPv6 connections. I had to look at netstat to see which protocol was being choosen on my father's box. I'm sure he had zero knowledge that he was using IPv6 (6-to-4). An IPv6 network really is as easy if not easier to run than a IPv4 network. - To route IPv6 with the same features and packet forwarding rate as with IPv4, nearly every network will be forced to purchase expensive router upgrades with no other real benefit beyond IPv6 connectivity (which again provides no ROI to justify the capex). Nobody is going to do forklift upgrades just for IPv6, but as routers get normally upgraded IPv6 functionality will indeed slowly expand. And the same arguement was put out 6 years ago. The backbone really has gone dual stack while you wern't paying attention. What's needed now is the SOHO CPE equipment sold to the non Asian market to catch up. - IPv6 provides almost no technological upgrades beyond additional address space. DHCP addressed the auto configuration feature, VPNs addressed IPsec. That extra address space really is a big advantage. It really is so much better to be able to get to machines you need to without have to manually setup application relays because you couldn't get enough address space to be able to globally address everything want to. - IPv4 address spaces will eventually transition to a market commodity model, providing a financial incentive that will encourage significant optimization and provide motive for providers to audit their allocations, and for businesses to part with IP space that they no longer properly utilize. The cost of acquiring IPv4 space will be less than the cost of upgrading to IPv6. Therefore, given a lack of ROI or sufficient technological motivation, and given the significant potential for optimization of existing IPv4 space both via technology and financial incentive, I see a minimum of five years before IPv6 is common. In the meantime, I'd like to only enable IPv6 on IPv6 enabled networks. So make the network IPv6 enabled. Both my home network and the office networks have bee IPv6 enabled for years now. My ISP doesn't support IPv6 yet though I know that have IPv6 netbocks for themselves now if not for the customers at this stage. There is a reasonable chance that this mail will leave here over IPv6 for some of the recipients. It will almost certainly travel over IPv6 for at least one hop. Mark Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 --- -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
Hi Andy Dills! On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:40:20 -0500 (EST); Andy Dills wrote about 'Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?': O.K., have snipped all the above IPv4 stuff, which actually seems quite reaosnable (though appears to foorget about STF), but this line... In the meantime, I'd like to only enable IPv6 on IPv6 enabled networks. ...I fail to see how not wanting to enable it leads to you wanting to remove it from the kernel entirely ? That is the bit I don't understand about all of this discussion. Theres probably hundereds of bits in the kernel you havent enabled and don't use, why specificly do you want an option to take IPV6 out ? I am genuinely piuzzled - why isn't ipv6_enabled=NO sufficient ? That's what I do on IPv4 networks and it works fine for me. That's actually a good point. I've had a hard time shedding my trim everything I don't use out of the kernel mentality over the years. Makes it harder to debug, etc. Don't want to see anything IPv6 related in command output, to let programs to bind on IPv6 addresses, etc. -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
On 5 Mar 2008, at 15:32, Mark Andrews wrote: - IPv6 provides almost no technological upgrades beyond additional address space. DHCP addressed the auto configuration feature, VPNs addressed IPsec. That extra address space really is a big advantage. It really is so much better to be able to get to machines you need to without have to manually setup application relays because you couldn't get enough address space to be able to globally address everything want to. Please see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0 This song exactly explains why you should care about IPv6 :) I don't get this anti IPv6 behaviour. If people are not willing to adopt it, it will not get tested which in turn will make other people hesitating to jump on the bandwagon. Having it compiled in your system does not cause harm if you don't configure it and for everything else there are traffic filters. Just like IPv4. - Ruben PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Mark Andrews wrote: Service providers get paid to push IP packets. They shouldn't care which protocol version is in the header. What they should be worried about is ensuring that they are here in 4 years time. Sure they should. The ASICs in the vast majority of production routers are setup for IPv4. Add in the fact that you can get very capable routers reasonably cheap on the secondary market and compound it with the lack of revenue driven demand, and economics overwhelms. Very precisely because we are worried about being here in four years time, we spend our money wisely. We spend today's money today. Throwing money at something with no demonstrable or projectable ROI is exactly how you wind up gone in four years. Most end users won't even know that they are running IPv6 connections. I had to look at netstat to see which protocol was being choosen on my father's box. I'm sure he had zero knowledge that he was using IPv6 (6-to-4). This is true, but illustrates my point. If users had to be dragged kicking and screaming into using digital television, which is obviously a huge upgrade that provides a significantly enhanced experience, why would they want to pay for a new CPE that works fine and will work fine for many years? Which also in turn provides them with more IP addresses than they can use via NAT? - To route IPv6 with the same features and packet forwarding rate as with IPv4, nearly every network will be forced to purchase expensive router upgrades with no other real benefit beyond IPv6 connectivity (which again provides no ROI to justify the capex). Nobody is going to do forklift upgrades just for IPv6, but as routers get normally upgraded IPv6 functionality will indeed slowly expand. And the same arguement was put out 6 years ago. The backbone really has gone dual stack while you wern't paying attention. Portions of it, yes. But this is expected; the backbone frequently has to upgrade for a variety of reasons, ranging from new and valuable technology (MPLS, DWDM, etc) to shady behavior by Cisco (forcing people to get the SUP720-3BXL to handle 255k prefixes). Every step you take away from public corporations who are spending stockholder money and have revenue driven infrastructure upgrades, you move toward companies who have a much slower growth rate with much fewer changes in network requirements, and who have to get capex approved by the person who's money is actually being spent on the improvements. - IPv6 provides almost no technological upgrades beyond additional address space. DHCP addressed the auto configuration feature, VPNs addressed IPsec. That extra address space really is a big advantage. It really is so much better to be able to get to machines you need to without have to manually setup application relays because you couldn't get enough address space to be able to globally address everything want to. So much better? Sure. Does it justify IPv6? I'm not convinced. I'm hoping some genius devises a new protocol that solves the growing issue of inter-domain routing scalability by eliminating the need for forwarding paths for every prefix in the global routing table, while also creating true network portability, allowing individuals to obtain personal IP space which they can utilize independant of their service provider, without requiring any knowledge of routing protocol. THAT is worth a forklift upgrade. THAT would be rapidly adopted. IPv6 at this point looks very poorly thought out in the face of such obviously incremental solutions such as: - Utilizing the rarely used 16 bit Identification field or the useless 32 bit Options field in the existing IPv4 header to include a private routing identifier. - Existing routers are compatibile, as they merely route the /32 to the NAT device, don't care about those fields. - The NAT device rewrites the packet based on the private routing identifier, without user intervention in configuring mapped addresses or ports. - The private routing identifier can either be a new DNS record or stuffed into TXT records. Initially, important devices would not rely on the private routing identifier, enabling fringe users to use as a best effort upgrade while network stacks and resolver libraries get upgraded. All software upgrades, all leaving the core untouched. That's just something I threw together while responding. Imagine what could happen if somebody smart focused on it. So make the network IPv6 enabled. Both my home network and the office networks have bee IPv6 enabled for years now. My ISP doesn't support IPv6 yet though I know that have IPv6 netbocks for themselves now if not for the customers at this stage. Oh, they have them for the customers. They just don't want to upgrade their routers. There is
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a reasonable chance that this mail will leave here over IPv6 for some of the recipients. It will almost certainly travel over IPv6 for at least one hop. Mark It did: drugs.dv.isc.org - IPv6 - mx1.freebsd.org - IPv6 - hub.freebsd.org - Mailman - localhost - hub.freebsd.org - IPv6 - mx2.freebsd.org - IPv6 - me The only IPv4 hop in this path was when Mailman connected to localhost (127.0.0.1) to reinject the email. And that is because I had 127.0.0.1 hard coded in a config file. -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars - JMS/B5 If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution. -- Robert Sewell ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a reasonable chance that this mail will leave here over IPv6 for some of the recipients. It will almost certainly travel over IPv6 for at least one hop. Mark It did: drugs.dv.isc.org - IPv6 - mx1.freebsd.org - IPv6 - hub.freebsd.org - Mailman - localhost - hub.freebsd.org - IPv6 - mx2.freebsd.org - IPv6 - me The only IPv4 hop in this path was when Mailman connected to localhost (127.0.0.1) to reinject the email. And that is because I had 127.0.0.1 hard coded in a config file. Oh, one more thing. If you are IPv6-enabled, you get to bypass the 10 minute greylisting delay on mx1.freebsd.org. Your email goes through instantly instead of potentially being delayed by 10-30 minutes. -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars - JMS/B5 If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution. -- Robert Sewell ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
On 2008-03-05 22:42, Peter Wemm wrote: Oh, one more thing. If you are IPv6-enabled, you get to bypass the 10 minute greylisting delay on mx1.freebsd.org. Your email goes through instantly instead of potentially being delayed by 10-30 minutes. Until the spammers start using IPv6... Then we'll know it's gone mainstream. :/ ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Dimitry Andric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2008-03-05 22:42, Peter Wemm wrote: Oh, one more thing. If you are IPv6-enabled, you get to bypass the 10 minute greylisting delay on mx1.freebsd.org. Your email goes through instantly instead of potentially being delayed by 10-30 minutes. Until the spammers start using IPv6... Then we'll know it's gone mainstream. :/ In the meantime, enjoy the peace and quiet... -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars - JMS/B5 If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution. -- Robert Sewell ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
On 2008-03-05 22:42, Peter Wemm wrote: Oh, one more thing. If you are IPv6-enabled, you get to bypass the 10 minute greylisting delay on mx1.freebsd.org. Your email goes through instantly instead of potentially being delayed by 10-30 minutes. Until the spammers start using IPv6... Then we'll know it's gone mainstream. :/ They do it now. :-) Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:42:25 -0800 From: Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Mark Andrews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is a reasonable chance that this mail will leave here over IPv6 for some of the recipients. It will almost certainly travel over IPv6 for at least one hop. Mark It did: drugs.dv.isc.org - IPv6 - mx1.freebsd.org - IPv6 - hub.freebsd.org - Mailman - localhost - hub.freebsd.org - IPv6 - mx2.freebsd.org - IPv6 - me The only IPv4 hop in this path was when Mailman connected to localhost (127.0.0.1) to reinject the email. And that is because I had 127.0.0.1 hard coded in a config file. Oh, one more thing. If you are IPv6-enabled, you get to bypass the 10 minute greylisting delay on mx1.freebsd.org. Your email goes through instantly instead of potentially being delayed by 10-30 minutes. Cool! That explains why most postings seem to take so long. Hopefully this message made it through with no IPv4 hops. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 pgpHdkTH7GQt1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
Hi Xin LI! On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:50:33 -0800; Xin LI wrote about 'Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?': I'm not interested in enabling support for IPv6 for now. When I remove INET6 from the kernel configuration, I cannot compile the kernel without disabling SCTP. With fresh 7.0-STABLE source, here's the error output (INET6 disabled, but SCTP enabled): Yes, INET6 is (currently) required if you enable SCTP. Will it be fixed? Any time soon? -- WBR, Vadim Goncharov. ICQ#166852181 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [Moderator of RU.ANTI-ECOLOGY][FreeBSD][http://antigreen.org][LJ:/nuclight] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
Hi Xin LI! On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:50:33 -0800; Xin LI wrote about 'Re: INET6 required fo r SCTP in 7.0?': I'm not interested in enabling support for IPv6 for now. When I remove INET6 from the kernel configuration, I cannot compile the kernel without disabling SCTP. With fresh 7.0-STABLE source, here's the error output (INET6 disabled, but SCTP enabled): Yes, INET6 is (currently) required if you enable SCTP. Will it be fixed? Any time soon? It would be better to remove the option all together. IPv6 is no longer a protocol under development. There is no need to make it optional any more. Having it there really sends the wrong signal. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
Hi there, I'm not interested in enabling support for IPv6 for now. When I remove INET6 from the kernel configuration, I cannot compile the kernel without disabling SCTP. With fresh 7.0-STABLE source, here's the error output (INET6 disabled, but SCTP enabled): uipc_syscalls.o(.text+0x3c1): In function `sctp_generic_recvmsg': /usr/src/sys/kern/uipc_syscalls.c:2608: undefined reference to `sctp_sorecvmsg' uipc_syscalls.o(.text+0x21a2): In function `sctp_generic_sendmsg_iov': /usr/src/sys/kern/uipc_syscalls.c:2486: undefined reference to `sctp_lower_sosend' uipc_syscalls.o(.text+0x249d): In function `sctp_generic_sendmsg': /usr/src/sys/kern/uipc_syscalls.c:2379: undefined reference to `sctp_lower_sosend' uipc_syscalls.o(.text+0x266c): In function `sctp_peeloff': /usr/src/sys/kern/uipc_syscalls.c:2246: undefined reference to `sctp_can_peel_off' uipc_syscalls.o(.text+0x28e6):/usr/src/sys/kern/uipc_syscalls.c:2287: undefined reference to `sctp_do_peeloff' rtsock.o(.text+0xb7d): In function `rt_newaddrmsg': /usr/src/sys/net/rtsock.c:897: undefined reference to `sctp_addr_change' in_proto.o(.data+0xa8): undefined reference to `sctp_input' in_proto.o(.data+0xb0): undefined reference to `sctp_ctlinput' in_proto.o(.data+0xb4): undefined reference to `sctp_ctloutput' in_proto.o(.data+0xbc): undefined reference to `sctp_init' in_proto.o(.data+0xc8): undefined reference to `sctp_drain' in_proto.o(.data+0xcc): undefined reference to `sctp_usrreqs' in_proto.o(.data+0xdc): undefined reference to `sctp_input' in_proto.o(.data+0xe4): undefined reference to `sctp_ctlinput' in_proto.o(.data+0xe8): undefined reference to `sctp_ctloutput' in_proto.o(.data+0xfc): undefined reference to `sctp_drain' in_proto.o(.data+0x100): undefined reference to `sctp_usrreqs' in_proto.o(.data+0x110): undefined reference to `sctp_input' in_proto.o(.data+0x118): undefined reference to `sctp_ctlinput' in_proto.o(.data+0x11c): undefined reference to `sctp_ctloutput' in_proto.o(.data+0x130): undefined reference to `sctp_drain' in_proto.o(.data+0x134): undefined reference to `sctp_usrreqs' Is this intended and/or a known issue? Thanks, Andy --- Andy Dills Xecunet, Inc. www.xecu.net 301-682-9972 --- ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
Andy Dills wrote: Hi there, I'm not interested in enabling support for IPv6 for now. When I remove INET6 from the kernel configuration, I cannot compile the kernel without disabling SCTP. With fresh 7.0-STABLE source, here's the error output (INET6 disabled, but SCTP enabled): Yes, INET6 is (currently) required if you enable SCTP. Cheers, -- Xin LI [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: INET6 required for SCTP in 7.0?
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 07:29:55PM -0500, Andy Dills wrote: Is this intended and/or a known issue? Known and well-documented. If you need/want SCTP, you need to keep the INET6 option. Otherwise, remove INET6 and remove SCTP as well. -- | Jeremy Chadwickjdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB | ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
