From: Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>
To: "Ole Trøan" <otroan@employees.org>
Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Current state of ipv6 in openwrt barrier breaker
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:23:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50C83EEF.8000601@openwrt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <21D9A278-EBD5-4148-AA3E-073AC93451B4@employees.org>
Hi Ole,
> we need to get the hosts fixed for this.
ideally yes, but judging from experience I don't think that will happen
(anytime soon).
> right now, given the state of affairs my recommendation would be not not enable ULAs by default.
Hmm I'd agree however I don't like to not have any (non-link-local)
addresses when there is no uplink. So I think I will keep the current
workaround (announcing ULA with preferred time 0 as long as there are
public prefixes) and see how that works.
> I'd really like us to avoid that. it is going to be so hard to get NPT out of the network again.
> it also forces applications to continue with STUN/TURN and all that stuff to discover global addresses
> that can be used for referrals. please let us keep the end to end properties of IPv6 intact.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you from a technical and ideological
standpoint. However I don't think it would be wise - at least as an
OpenWrt developer - to force any of this ideology onto users. IPv6 NAT
made it into the Linux kernel so I guess there are some legitimate
use-cases, so at least I don't want to be the guy assuming I know better
then the people who implemented, requested and accepted these features.
I'd rather have it implemented and more or less supported in the most
sane way possible then people hacking it in on their own.
However as I said I feel the need to have reasonable defaults and make
it easy (easier?) to use the standards-compliant way than to use NAT.
Thats where I can be reasoned with ;)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-12 8:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-11 19:56 Ole Trøan
2012-12-11 20:25 ` Dave Taht
2012-12-11 21:31 ` Ole Trøan
2012-12-12 8:19 ` Dave Taht
2012-12-12 9:08 ` Ole Trøan
2012-12-12 9:19 ` Steven Barth
2012-12-12 9:28 ` Ole Trøan
2012-12-12 9:47 ` Steven Barth
2012-12-12 10:11 ` Dave Taht
2012-12-12 18:56 ` Michael Richardson
2012-12-12 9:05 ` Török Edwin
2012-12-11 20:46 ` Steven Barth
2012-12-11 21:02 ` Ole Trøan
2012-12-12 8:23 ` Steven Barth [this message]
2012-12-12 8:43 ` Ole Trøan
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-12-10 8:41 Dave Taht
2012-12-10 9:15 ` Dave Taht
2012-12-10 11:27 ` Steven Barth
2012-12-10 11:40 ` Dave Taht
2012-12-10 11:53 ` Steven Barth
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/cerowrt-devel.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50C83EEF.8000601@openwrt.org \
--to=cyrus@openwrt.org \
--cc=cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net \
--cc=otroan@employees.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox