>At 4:59 PM -0700 5/8/00, Jonathan Stone wrote:
>>..., I didn't intend to distort your words, and I dont think I
>>did. Widescale IPv6 deployment is not a sure thing even yet, and
>>(as you note) you are often quick to say so.
>
>There you go again.  It's not my uncertainty about IPv6's success that
>I am quick to mention, but rather, on those occasions when I do express
>my uncertainty, there are qualifications that I am quick to add.
>
>>   I dont think that was misrepresentation.
>
>What I objected to was using my concerns that IPv6 might not succeed as
>an argument against doing something that can help it succeed (that being:
>including IPv6 in NetBSD).

He doesn't want to exclude IPv6 from NetBSD...he wants NetBSD to *NOT 
REQUIRE* IPv6


>  > That depends on whether you mean IPv6-plus-IPv4 "dual stack" setups,
>  > or IPv4-only setups.  People have been  breaking the latter,
>
>No one has broken the latter. All that happened was that there was a
>line in a sendmail config that, prior to some hacking done in the last
>24 hours, would have had to have been commented out on a v4 only
>box. This isn't "breaking v4 only setups". I can't think of anything
>else that has happened like it, even.

Umm, how can you say that that "didn't break it"? It certainly wasn't 
broken hard, but it was broken. On "anything else like it"...I 
decided to roll a kernel without the IPv6 functionality in it (paring 
down unused options) and was hosed when I rebooted the kernel...The 
kernel worked fine, but I work on my BSD box remotely with the BSD 
box doing auto-dialin to my ISP. When I rebooted w/o v6 support, that 
broke my pppd. I couldn't even use pppd with the noipv6 line in the 
options file. That cut me off from the BSD box until I could get 
there to access it locally. I consider that to be EXTREMELY broken.

>If the presence of IPv6 is interfering with the use of IPv4, or causing
>the system to crash, then that's a problem that should be fixed.  One would
>hope there are less radical ways to fix it than deleting IPv6 entirely
>from the system.
>
>Why is an IPv4-only system important to you (i.e., no IPv6, no AppleTalk,
>etc.)?  Is there a technical rationale, such as memory shortage?  Or is it
>a religious thing?

He doesn't want NetBSD to be IPv4 only...he wants NetBSD to be *ABLE* 
to be IPv4 only.

Mike
Bikers don't *DO* taglines.