3 ms·

This may be a “joke”, but it’s disturbing to see people clamoring to deny others their freedom in a FOSS context. Want to use IPv6? Fine. But don’t try to remo

This may be a “joke”, but it’s disturbing to see people clamoring to deny others their freedom in a FOSS context. Want to use IPv6? Fine. But don’t try to remove v4 support from people who have built stable networks around it. You won’t be able to force the world to switch to IPv6 with tricks like this, any more than you can force old industrial machines to stop using ancient 486es as controllers. There is a lot of old equipment in the world. IPv6 was built to work alongside v4, and there is no reason to change that.

embedding-shape 7mo ago
> it’s disturbing to see people clamoring to deny others their freedom in a FOSS context How does "allow building Linux to be IPv6-only" somehow "deny others their freedom" exactly? I'm willing to wager most distributions will still be dual v4+v6, but if they aren't, isn't that something for you to bring up with your distribution rather than that the kernel just allows something?
- iamnothere 7mo ago
  Coupling this patch with language about “legacy IP”, along with the follow up comments from the person who submitted the patch, it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4. I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions. I have no problem with allowing optional IPv4 or IPv6 only builds as long as both are kept well-maintained.
  - embedding-shape 7mo ago
    > it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4 But so what? It still doesn't remove v4, in any shape or form, and if that was proposed to the kernel, I'm again fairly confident it'd be rejected. > I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions Ah, yeah that might be. I just saw your comment first, with no context of what you were actually answering, so it kind of looks like you're replying "to the submission", which really isn't denying any freedoms, I guess I was confused about that, my bad. Still, wouldn't it be better to answer directly to those comments, rather than "replying" to an argument/debate that is actually happening elsewhere?
    - iamnothere 7mo ago
      Somehow IPv4 versus IPv6 has become one of those noxious political-technical debates like Android versus Apple or GPL versus BSD/MIT, in which both sides are dug in and think that the other side must be destroyed. The reason that I don’t like seeing patches like this, even as a “joke”, is that there are real people who would like to see IPv4 removed (possibly by government intervention) in order to achieve their dream of an IPv6 only internet. The whole idea is preposterous, but here we are. It’s about as realistic as banning cars but that doesn’t stop the endless flame wars about it. Someone has to step in to point out that v4 and v6 were designed to coexist, this is fine, please don’t remove common standards for your personal preferences.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
budman1 7mo ago
*removed comment. I didn't know this was an April fools joke. sorry for my lack of a clue....
- zamadatix 7mo ago
  The patchset is an April fools joke and even then it's not going this far.
bladeee 7mo ago
What? Freedom to opt in or out is good either way.
traderj0e 7mo ago
v6 was meant to succeed v4, not work alongside it. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8200#section-1 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8200#section-1

embedding-shape 7mo ago

> it’s disturbing to see people clamoring to deny others their freedom in a FOSS context How does "allow building Linux to be IPv6-only" somehow "deny others their freedom" exactly? I'm willing to wager most distributions will still be dual v4+v6, but if they aren't, isn't that something for you to bring up with your distribution rather than that the kernel just allows something?

iamnothere 7mo ago
Coupling this patch with language about “legacy IP”, along with the follow up comments from the person who submitted the patch, it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4. I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions. I have no problem with allowing optional IPv4 or IPv6 only builds as long as both are kept well-maintained.
- embedding-shape 7mo ago
  > it is clear that the submitter is hostile towards IPv4 But so what? It still doesn't remove v4, in any shape or form, and if that was proposed to the kernel, I'm again fairly confident it'd be rejected. > I also see hostility towards IPv4 in the comments here and other similar discussions Ah, yeah that might be. I just saw your comment first, with no context of what you were actually answering, so it kind of looks like you're replying "to the submission", which really isn't denying any freedoms, I guess I was confused about that, my bad. Still, wouldn't it be better to answer directly to those comments, rather than "replying" to an argument/debate that is actually happening elsewhere?
  - iamnothere 7mo ago
    Somehow IPv4 versus IPv6 has become one of those noxious political-technical debates like Android versus Apple or GPL versus BSD/MIT, in which both sides are dug in and think that the other side must be destroyed. The reason that I don’t like seeing patches like this, even as a “joke”, is that there are real people who would like to see IPv4 removed (possibly by government intervention) in order to achieve their dream of an IPv6 only internet. The whole idea is preposterous, but here we are. It’s about as realistic as banning cars but that doesn’t stop the endless flame wars about it. Someone has to step in to point out that v4 and v6 were designed to coexist, this is fine, please don’t remove common standards for your personal preferences.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]

budman1 7mo ago

*removed comment. I didn't know this was an April fools joke. sorry for my lack of a clue....

zamadatix 7mo ago
The patchset is an April fools joke and even then it's not going this far.

bladeee 7mo ago

What? Freedom to opt in or out is good either way.

traderj0e 7mo ago

v6 was meant to succeed v4, not work alongside it. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8200#section-1 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8200#section-1