Re: ipv6

Have to agree with Gil about the IPv6 status. The last "IPv6 Day"
highlighted the lack of Corprate/Enterprise and Provider IPv6 support.
The use of NAT and 10. private IP Ranges is greatly mitigating the
trauma of IPv4 exhaustion. Again the good or bad of that is up for
debate.

I suspect Nick's problem is not so much efficiency as it is timing. He
probably has an IPv6 network and needs it up and running to mount his
shares. So running it in rc.local means he has running his
mounting/ntp/etc a second time.

To solve the issue if the testing scripts do not meet the need, move
the ipv6 initator script in to its own rc.* file and add it in the
correct spot in rc.M

Evan

On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Gil André <[email protected]> wrote:
> Er...
> On 28 Feb 2014, at 02:56, Nick Edwards <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So, anyone know if when slackware's network setup will include
>> provisions for IPv6? running them from rc.local is not efficient,
>> given its needed much earlier, like when IPv4 is brought up, I would
>> have thought the rc.inet's would cater for this in 2014, since most
>> the world has already exhausted IPv4.
>
> How is this not efficient?
>
> 99.9% of the time, rc.local is executed just a few seconds after the
> rest of the /etc/rc.d/ scripts. Unless you have very specific needs,
> this should be good enough.
>
> If you have already written your own ipv6 scripts, maybe you should
> share them with the rest of the world?
>
> And I share ''x y'' opinion: the vast majority of ISPs and web sites
> out there do not offer IPv6 connections yet. Whether that is good or
> bad is another discussion entirely...
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Gil.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> slackware mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/slackware