Re: [RFC v2 2/4] net: enables interface option to skip IP

[Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1472 bytes --]

On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 18:04 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>
> 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 #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 811 bytes --]