On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 06:58:53AM +0200, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote: > Paul de Weerd <we...@weirdnet.nl> writes: > > [...] > > > This makes a whole lot of sense to me. Please make OpenBSD the first > > OS to do (this part of) v6 in a sensible way. > > Actually that makes me laugh. Sensible, weeeh. Let's protect our users > from the dangers of IPv6 link-local addresses! Wait, what users are we > talking about? We have no users, right, we have developers that break > stuff, and other developers that clean up the feces. Between +inet6 and > eui64 all we have are non-idiomatic or broken alternatives. > > Link-local addresses have been "exposed" since almost 15 years now, it's > a good time to decide that they are persona non grata in OpenBSD land. > After all, the v6 stack has had all the testing it could get, now that > we know that it works well, we don't need testing anymore. > > What could be sensible, though, is accepting the fact that IPv6 exists, > and the fact that link-local addresses are part of it, whether you have > global connectivity or not. Now call me a v6 zealot, I probably live > and work in an imaginary world.
That reasoning would also leed to the conclusion that we should remove 'up' and 'down' from ifconfig. Since you have a network card installed and it is part of the system and should therefor be running. There is no need to install a link-local address on an interface just because it was up-ed. Would you like that we install link local IPv4 addresses on all interfaces? It would be possible. It would be ridiculous. Also not every interface needs a link-local address. It actually causes strange behaviours when bridge(4)-ing stuff together. This is why -inet6 was created as a hack around the fact that IPv6 is greedy taking over your network. It is time to replace the hack with a proper solution. -- :wq Claudio
