RE: nd6 change and rc.d/network_ipv6 -> rc.d/netif integration

I agree with Doug and I'd prefer getting more runtime cycles
out of these changes before MFC into stable/8. 

On a semi-related topic, I like the features developed in r197138.

The changes are significant enough that having a MFC of 3 days
is way too short. This changelist should also be postponed to post
REL_8.

-- Qing



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> current_at_freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Doug Barton
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 3:23 PM
> To: Hiroki Sato
> Cc: freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org; freebsd-rc_at_freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: nd6 change and rc.d/network_ipv6 -> rc.d/netif
integration
> 
> Hiroki Sato wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >  I would like your comments about merging the network_ipv6 -> netif
> >  integration to stable/8.
> 
> I maintain my objection to MFC'ing this prior to the 8.0-RELEASE. As
> stated previously my objections are as follows (in decreasing order of
> general importance):
> 
> 1. It is a fairly significant change happening too late in the release
> cycle. IMO that is reason enough to not allow the change.
> 2. Although 8.0 seems to be getting more beta/rc testing than previous
> .0 releases, the overall number of users testing it is still a small
> percentage of the userbase.
> 3. A dramatically smaller percentage of those users who are actually
> doing the testing is also using IPv6.
> 4. There are still rough edges to the changes.
> 5. I personally disagree with some of the choices you've made and
> would like to see more discussion about them. (More about 4 and 5
> below.)
> 
> The rough edges I've noticed have to do with the various problems
> people have reported to the lists, including what seems to be a lack
> of testing without IPv6 in the kernel, continuing evolution of how to
> deal with the afnet tests, and personally I've noticed the following
> on my console, although I haven't had time to research yet whether
> it's definitely coming from your changes:
> 
> in6_ifattach_linklocal: failed to add a link-local addr to wpi0
> 
> In terms of design decisions you've made, I am still confused about
> why you insist on deprecating ipv6_enable. Recent discussion on the
> lists indicates to me that I'm not alone in thinking that this is a
> valuable mechanism and that there is not only no reason to deprecate
> it, to do so is not desirable.
> 
> I'd also like to explore further the idea that I suggested in a
> previous thread that it should not be necessary to specify
> ifconfig_IF_ipv6 at all. The vast majority of users will be using RA
> for the next couple of years at least, so in my mind it makes sense to
> default to using ipv6_network_interfaces=$network_interfaces and RA by
> default. If the user has a need to configure something explicitly then
> you've provided the mechanism for them to do that, but they shouldn't
> be forced to use it. This is another reason that I think ipv6_enable
> should be the "master" knob. I like the idea of the ipv6_prefer knob,
> but I do not like the idea of overloading it with the function of
> ipv6_enable too.
> 
> I can certainly understand why you are eager to get these changes into
> 8.0, however if we do a proper job of maintaining backwards
> compatibility (which I think we should do anyway) I don't see any
> reason that they cannot be merged after 8.0, and more importantly
> after they have had a proper opportunity to shake out in HEAD.
> 
> 
> Doug
> 
> --
> 
>     This .signature sanitized for your protection
> 
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-
> unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"