From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-fx0-f43.google.com (mail-fx0-f43.google.com [209.85.161.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22F00200251; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 08:49:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by fagn18 with SMTP id n18so7894348fag.16 for ; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:49:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=CnstLpMGY7qdMXVAa6VJCS/5Cn/Zp9F83nW7jOP7GIs=; b=bdVMp6vloBdfoqiHZe1PZN6ZboLR7pcr0a0dHjQNz6OYIG0KMXdhx9s9lGzbZatvDG 8NsVEJb/A78N2zar9P1qkSCPTZoCt2Bw/1v7Q7WK7zpiVke0b8bGt0nKZAIfCiMjOwcu 1FjKQ5iCbf6apge0XNv0rajNeEY6cF2eHmUCQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.173.74 with SMTP id bi10mr17121317igc.4.1323190197503; Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:49:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.204.83 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 08:49:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:49:57 +0100 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: cerowrt@lists.bufferbloat.net, jow@openwrt.org, cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [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 16:50:00 -0000 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. --=20 Dave T=E4ht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 FR Tel: 0638645374 http://www.bufferbloat.net