From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [RFC] IPV6 address management Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:58:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20090108.135819.103389689.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20090108134402.6e88438f@extreme> <20090108.135125.13529853.davem@davemloft.net> <20090108135614.23aed603@extreme> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: shemminger@vyatta.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:54416 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750889AbZAHV6R (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 16:58:17 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090108135614.23aed603@extreme> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Stephen Hemminger Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:56:14 -0800 > On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:51:25 -0800 (PST) > David Miller wrote: > > > From: Stephen Hemminger > > Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:44:02 -0800 > > > > > On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:58:30 -0800 (PST) > > > David Miller 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.