From nobody Sun Sep 12 22:17:00 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6187417B89DA for ; Sun, 12 Sep 2021 22:17:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jamie@catflap.org) Received: from donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net (donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net [IPv6:2001:19f0:300:2185:123::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4H73r22MPbz4vST; Sun, 12 Sep 2021 22:17:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jamie@catflap.org) Received: from donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net (donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net [104.207.135.49]) by donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 18CMH0ka057720; Sun, 12 Sep 2021 23:17:00 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from jamie@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net) Received: (from jamie@localhost) by donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id 18CMH0qO057719; Sun, 12 Sep 2021 23:17:00 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from jamie) From: Jamie Landeg-Jones Message-Id: <202109122217.18CMH0qO057719@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2021 23:17:00 +0100 Organization: Dyslexic Fish To: karels@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: change to deprecate broadcast on host 0 of a subnet References: <202109121525.18CFPuZM067614@mail.karels.net> In-Reply-To: <202109121525.18CFPuZM067614@mail.karels.net> User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.4 7/29/08 List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net [104.207.135.49]); Sun, 12 Sep 2021 23:17:00 +0100 (BST) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4H73r22MPbz4vST X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N Mike Karels wrote: > Comments are welcome on the review. I will wait a couple of days > for comments before proceeding. I am also interested in comments on > whether this should be MFC'ed to 13-stable after a suitable delay. Personally, if an MFC isn't too timeconsuming to do, and there are no worries about regression, I'd have thought it woud be advantgeous to have STABLE matching CURRENT as far as possible. It would also speed up the time we have to wait until this is standard on all supported versions. On a more personal note, I track STABLE on all my machines, and would be willing to fiddle with this and the other inet4 changes, but I don't have time to maintain running CURRENT on them, as they are mostly in production use. Of course, it's not about me, but I suspect I'm not the only one with this opinion! Cheers, Jamie