On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
| * Paul de Weerd <we...@weirdnet.nl> [2014-05-02 21:20]:
| > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 06:53:08PM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
| [connectivity via link-local]
| > | Not really, I'm puzzled by your question. It works and has always
| > | worked but I shouldn't expect them to work...
| > I'm puzzled by the fact it has always been this way in OpenBSD. It
| > goes against the OpenBSD philosophy.
|
| see where the v6 zealots got us?
Well, I do consider myself an IPv6 enthusiast. Probably not a zealot;
I'm not one for zealotry myself... :)
| > I'll try to rephrase the question:
| >
| > Why do you expect that you are accessible on IPv6
| > when you configure an interface with IPv4? You
| > don't expect to get IPv4 connectivity when you
| > configure IPv6, do you?
|
| a very good question to ask.
|
| i wish -inet6 was default.
|
| i'll probably add a sysctl to globally nuke v6 from all interfaces
| soon. somebody pls remind me at the next hackathon.
Well, I think -inet6 would be a good default, but I think there's more
to it. Enabling net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv should still get me a
link-local address (and, if router advertisements are present on the
local network, an autoconfigured (autoconfprivacy) address too). But
if I have multiple interfaces and configure my system for SLAAC, what
should happen? To me, it seems that accept_rtadv should be a
per-interface thing.
Anyway, I believe at least -inet6 is a better default than the current
situation.
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
--
>++++++++[<++++++++++>-]<+++++++.>+++[<------>-]<.>+++[<+
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
