On Sun, Dec 19, 1999 at 11:05:23AM -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
> At 10:10 PM 12/18/99 , Michael Graff wrote:
> >matthew green <mrg@eterna.com.au> writes:
> >
> > > i would like for it to be a sysctl; i don't care about the default.
> >
> >I tend to think the default is what the RFC says -- we should have it
> >on by default, and put a comment in inetd.conf that we ship, and on
> >the inet6 and inet man pages.
> 
> As an [original] author of the IPv6 Adv API, I have no problem with the
> sysctl.  But I just made a proposal to add a socket option to control
> this on a per socket basis.  This is because an application needs to
> be able to control this itself.

Yes, I think that would be even better. Otherwise applications wil not
use it and it will become de-facto obsolete and in that case it'd be
better to remove it from the draft all together.

Feico.