On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 06:47:23PM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
> I see no particular reason we have to support INET-and-no-INET6 (or
> INET6-and-no-INET, for that matter) kernels, any more than we support
> INET-but-no-SACK-or-window-scaling kernels.  (We may want to, sure.
> But I see no reason we should have to.  Of course, if we don't, we
> probably should subsume both under a single kernel option.)

Some people (myself included) have no IPv6 connectivity. Nor do I want or
need it. We don't insist on SCSI in kernels with support for hard disks, do
we? No, if I don't have SCSI in a machine, I can leave it out. I think the
same argument is valid for IPv6.

We support IDE-and-no-SCSI, as well as SCSI-and-no-IDE. Kernels can have
both even if the machine only has one of the two, but why add extra bloat?
This isn't even going into the fact that NetBSD insists on trying IPv6 first
on everything, even if there is no IPv6 connectivity, which is a very good
reason to leave it out of a kernel, IMO.

-Sean