turning off IPv6

[Noah Dain]

On 7/5/06, Christofer C. Bell <christofer.c.bell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/4/06, Noah Dain <noahdain at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > yeah, i never did fathom why it seems like every linux distro feels
> > the need to have ipv6 enabled out of the box.  It's always the first
> > thing I throw out for a custom kernel.
>
> Because people do use it and distributors want *every* user of their
> product to be able to use it (their distribution) out of the box.

_Very_ few users use it.  And most of those are doing so
experimentally (ie. on ipv6 test networks).

And by that line of reasoning, every daemon available should be
running and listening on all interfaces by default.  But we don't do
that, do we?

>
> > I can think of many reasons NOT to have it enabled, and no good
> > reasons for it to be enabled by default.
>
> Other than people who are using it and the fact that simply having it
> enabled presents no security concern whatsoever.

So there are no security bugs in linux's ipv6?  That's quite a bold statement.

Cisco didn't think their ipv6 had holes either.  They were wrong, and
*lots* of people had to scramble and tie down their routers.

>
> > Just seems like they want everyone to play "security guineapig" for a
> > newfangled protocol.
>
> No.
>
> --
> Chris
>
> "I trust the Democrats to take away my money, which I can afford.  I
> trust the Republicans to take away my freedom, which I cannot."
>
> --
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
>

the less code running the better.  the less code running and exposed
to the world the mo' better.  Obviously there's a balancing act going
on here, but ipv6 just fall flat.  I'd say *far* more people would
have use of bind running out of the box than ipv6.

-- 
Noah Dain
"I don't want to make toys, I want to be a dentist!"