netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: enable IPv6 iff IPv4

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20190401.145437.2134488362479492905.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Mon, 01 Apr 2019 14:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     f.fainelli@...il.com
Cc:     zenczykowski@...il.com, maze@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] net: enable IPv6 iff IPv4

From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 14:37:25 -0700

> There are tons of systems where IPv6 will likely never be used, let's
> face it, so why kill the ability to insmod the IPv6 stack since it
> really does not come at the cost of trying to fix the unloading part
> already?
> 
> I am not convinced this is solving any problems TBH...

I agree.

Saying everyone must be doing ipv6 3 to 4 years from now is the height
of arrogance.

And maybe it is this arrogance of people pushing ipv6 that blocks
widespread ipv6 adoption rather than any technical reasons.

That's nice on your network, but don't tell me what's appropriate or
useful on mine.  And ironically the "don't tell me what to do on my
network" argument was used as justification for this change.

It cuts both ways.