Subject: Re: [RFC] IPV6 address management

From: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 14:01:22 -0800

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:58:19 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <[email-masked]> wrote:

> From: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:56:14 -0800
> 
> > On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:51:25 -0800 (PST)
> > David Miller <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
> > > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:44:02 -0800
> > > 
> > > > On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:58:30 -0800 (PST)
> > > > David Miller <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Or is it to gradually get people to use the non-default
> > > > > (via distribution sysctl settings etc.) and eventually
> > > > > make it the default?
> > > > No plan to ever change the default. Just ship with sysctl.conf
> > > > setting.
> > > 
> > > If the distributions all ship with the sysctl changed
> > > to the non-default, our "default" is pretty meaningless
> > > wouldn't you say?
> > 
> > It seems the only logical way to undo a poor choice
> > in the original design
> 
> If the dists can do it so unilaterally, why can't we?
> 
> Everything about these proposals is a contradiction.
> That's why I don't like them at all.
> 
> I say we keep the behavior, we don't change or break
> anything, and people need to learn how to cope with it.

Fine, it won't be the first or last vendor specific kernel patch.