On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 18:04 -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Dan Williams <dcbw@xxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:22:00 -0600 > > > In the future I expect more people will want to disable IPv4 as > > they move to IPv6. > > I definitely don't. > > I've been lightly following this conversation and I have to say > a few things. > > disable_ipv6 was added because people wanted to make sure their > machines didn't generate any ipv6 traffic because "ipv6 is not > mature", "we don't have our firewalls configured to handle that > kind of traffic" etc. > > None of these things apply to ipv4. > > And if you think people will go to ipv6 only, you are dreaming. > > Name a provider of a major web sitewho will go to strictly only > providing an ipv6 facing site? > > Only an idiot who wanted to lose significiant nunbers of page views > and traffic would do that, That's obviously true for public-facing servers, but that doesn't mean it's not useful to anyone. > so ipv4 based connectivity will be universally necessary forever. You can run an internal network, or access network, as v6-only with NAT64 and DNS64 at the border. I believe some mobile networks are doing this; it was also done on the main FOSDEM wireless network this year. Ben. > I think disable_ipv4 is absolutely a non-starter. -- Ben Hutchings Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. - Donald Knuth
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
