netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: (usagi-users 03234) Re: support of IPv6 by NFS

To: usagi-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: (usagi-users 03234) Re: support of IPv6 by NFS
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:14:47 -0500
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Mar 2005 07:13:32 CST." <200503020713.33133.Info@Quantum-Sci.com>
References: <200503020721.j227Ldir012381@m5p.com> <200503020713.33133.Info@Quantum-Sci.com>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 07:13:32 CST, Quantum Scientific said:

> It goes without saying that one should not rely entirely on a firewall.  To 
> assert that I say this is a canard.  But the *reason* one should not rely 
> entirely on a firewall is, in case you accidentally open a hole, not because 
> ip6tables is 'weak'!  

Hey, the reason you're taking all the flames here is because *YOU* are the one
who said that the IPv6 stuff was "unusable" because it didn't have a firewall
that did connection tracking.

If it's something you shouldn't be relying on, the lack of it doesn't render
something (in your own words):

> After a week of intensive research and full-time study, it's become clear 
> that 
> IPV6 support, as it comes in standard Linux 2.6 kernels, is effectively 
> non-functional.

So the lack of something you "should not rely on entirely" makes it "effectively
non-functional".

Right.

Attachment: pgpu6wABdLwPz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>