From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from chi.subsignal.org (cxd-2-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:ed::2]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68DCA21F1B0 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:23:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.21] (unknown [212.255.230.88]) by chi.subsignal.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 48B66126176; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:23:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50C83EEF.8000601@openwrt.org> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:23:11 +0100 From: Steven Barth User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= References: <8F973FF7-B39D-4E21-B889-14F6105A29F4@employees.org> <21D9A278-EBD5-4148-AA3E-073AC93451B4@employees.org> In-Reply-To: <21D9A278-EBD5-4148-AA3E-073AC93451B4@employees.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Current state of ipv6 in openwrt barrier breaker 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: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:23:13 -0000 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 ;)