if_stf: document 6rd in the man page
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by kp on Nov 17 2021, 5:05 PM.

Details

Reviewers

None

Group Reviewers

network
pfsense
manpages

Commits

rG3f7b9525ea48: if_stf: document 6rd in the man page

Summary

PR: 253328
Sponsored by: Rubicon Communications, LLC ("Netgate")

Diff Detail

Repository

rG FreeBSD src repository

Lint

Lint Not Applicable

Unit

Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

kp created this revision.Nov 17 2021, 5:05 PM

Herald added a reviewer: manpages. · View Herald TranscriptNov 17 2021, 5:05 PM

Herald added a subscriber: imp. · View Herald Transcript

kp requested review of this revision.Nov 17 2021, 5:05 PM

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B42845: Diff 98651.Nov 17 2021, 5:05 PM

Fix typo

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B42846: Diff 98652.Nov 17 2021, 5:06 PM

I can't vouch to the technical accuracy, but other than my 2 inline comments, the wording looks good to me. (Is 2002:8504 an IPv6 tunneling prefix? If not,, maybe uses of that should be changed to use something within the RFC 3849 IPv6 documentation prefix (2001:db8::/32) and the rest of the examples adjusted to use a longer prefix within that.)

share/man/man4/stf.4
60	While you're touching that page: should be "a site border router" or "site border routers".
310	Is it worth keeping that URL still? 6bone was completely phased out 15 years ago..

In D33042#746144, @pauamma_gundo.com wrote:

I can't vouch to the technical accuracy, but other than my 2 inline comments, the wording looks good to me. (Is 2002:8504 an IPv6 tunneling prefix? If not,, maybe uses of that should be changed to use something within the RFC 3849 IPv6 documentation prefix (2001:db8::/32) and the rest of the examples adjusted to use a longer prefix within that.)

2002::/16 is the prefix used for 6to4, so it is appropriate as an example in the 6to4 case. 6rd can use any IPv6 prefix, so the documentation prefix is appropriate there.

share/man/man4/stf.4
60	I'll post a separate review for this remark and the next one. I'd like to keep this review/commit for the 6rd changes only.
310	It's probably time to remove this yes. Like the other remark I'll do this in a separate commit.