From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from halifax.chebucto.ns.ca (chebucto.ns.Ca [192.75.95.75]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8514C2009A6 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:12:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from blk-224-134-138.eastlink.ca ([24.224.134.138]:4304 "EHLO [192.168.10.198]" smtp-auth: "turner" TLS-CIPHER: "DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA keybits 256/256 version TLSv1/SSLv3" TLS-PEER-CN1: ) by halifax.chebucto.ns.ca with ESMTP id S4337Ab1LFRLc (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:11:32 -0400 Message-ID: <4EDE4C94.6020701@chebucto.ns.ca> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 13:10:44 -0400 From: Shane Turner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111130 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Extensive IPv6 support can be dropped from cerowrt rc8 X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:12:20 -0000 [Re-posting to list. Accidentally sent directly to Dave previously.] I was hoping that IPv6 would remain one of the focuses of this, but I'll admit I never got anywhere beyond registering for a SiXXS account. Shane On 06/12/2011 12:49 PM, Dave Taht wrote: > This is the third of a string of mails discussing what can be dropped > from cerowrt rc8. > > IPv6 is always a headache. Universally, feedback on the 6to4 scheme we > have in place has been negative. It works well in places where > 6to4 works, and not at all where 6to4 doesn't work, and creates > complications in the firewall rules and doubles the amount of > testing we should theoretically be doing against all forms of > networking, notably TCP. > > The only portion of the ipv6 support that anyone with funding has > expressed an interest in has been DHCP-PD, and expending > resources to make that work well, may well be a good idea. > > That said, we've found and helped fix plenty of bugs in ipv6, and > going DHCP-PD only makes it impossible for anyone not > in a DHCP-PD environement to accomplish anything with ipv6, and most > early deployments are only giving out a /64 which > is useless for doing anything with the current, multiply routed > architecture of cerowrt. If we kept AHCP we could leverage > that + DHCP-PD. > > I am not able to test ipv6 at all, in paris, at present. It is > completely blocked everywhere I have been in Paris. > > Eliminating IPv6 entirely from our test cycles and build process would > save a lot of time. > > This gets bugs #98, #140, #145, #239, #273, and to some extent #311 > and a few others off our plate in the next quarter. >