Re: ipv6_enable

On 04/04/10 22:49, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Doug Barton <dougb_at_FreeBSD.org> wrote
>   in <4BB95564.1070604_at_FreeBSD.org>:
> 
> do> On 04/04/10 02:41, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> do> > "Kevin Oberman" <oberman_at_es.net> wrote
> do> >   in <20100404053352.E6F751CC13_at_ptavv.es.net>:
> do> >
> do> > ob> The use of FACILITY_enable in rc.conf predates /etc/rc.d scripts and I
> do> > ob> see no reason not to use them to enable or disable functionality whether
> do> > ob> it involves a script in rc.d or not. The idea is to have a clear,
> do> > ob> obvious way to enable or disable functionality. I see nothing in Hiroki's
> do> > ob> proposal that is nearly as clear and to the point as 'ipv6_enable'.
> do> >
> do> >  Another reason I lean to not using xxx_enable is that an rc.d knob
> do> >  cannot control enabling/disabling the IPv6 functionality actually.
> do> >  It was true even when we were using the network_ipv6 script.
> do>
> do> But that's equally true of how you're using ipv6_prefer. :)  You've
> do> basically just moved the overloading of 2 of the 3 previous functions of
> do> ipv6_enable to ipv6_prefer. I am suggesting that we split all 3
> do> functions into different knobs.
> 
>  No, the current ipv6_prefer=NO has nothing to do with disabling IPv6.

			if checkyesno ipv6_prefer; then
				_ipv6_opts="-ifdisabled"
			else
				_ipv6_opts="ifdisabled"
			fi

In any case, I give up.

Reasonable arguments for not continuing to pursue ipv6_enable:
1. Of those who expressed an opinion, it was roughly evenly divided
between support and opposition.
2. In the months since your original commit, I'm the only one who has
expressed a strong preference for keeping it.

Unreasonable arguments: I am completely out of time and energy to
continue discussing it.

So, I just committed r206408 that has most of my previously posted
changes, but altered to fit both the lack of ipv6_enable, and the
requirement to explicitly configure the interface. I've chosen to take
the complete lack of commentary on any of my previous patches to be
implicit approval of the changes. The one area where we did seem to
reach consensus is that ipv6_network_interfaces=AUTO is a reasonable
intermediate step, so I've included that change as well.

The actual changes and the rationale for them are described in the
commit message. The documentation in rc.conf.5 is greatly expanded as
well, which I think should make things perfectly clear.

With these changes you can now configure RA as simply as adding
ifconfig_<interface>_ipv6=RTADV to rc.conf (assuming of course that
INET6 is in the kernel). The lo0 interface will continue to be
configured by default. If there are no ifconfig_<interface>_ipv6 options
for any of the other interfaces they will not be configured for IPv6 at
all.

Any commentary on the technical merits of the changes is welcome
assuming that the code has been reviewed and understood.


Regards,

Doug

-- 

	... and that's just a little bit of history repeating.
			-- Propellerheads

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/