[Cerowrt-devel] Extensive IPv6 support can be dropped from cerowrt rc8

[Cerowrt-devel] Extensive IPv6 support can be dropped from cerowrt rc8

[Dave Taht]

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.

-- 
Dave Täht
SKYPE: davetaht
US Tel: 1-239-829-5608
FR Tel: 0638645374
http://www.bufferbloat.net

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Extensive IPv6 support can be dropped from cerowrt rc8

[Shane Turner]

[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.
>

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] Extensive IPv6 support can be dropped from cerowrt rc8

[david]

Again, what are you trying to address? there are a lot of issues with 
IPv6, do you want to be working to solve those, or do you want to focus on 
bufferbloat.

if openWRT supports IPv6 you should not remove it, but don't go out of 
your way to provide anything more than openwrt includes unless it directly 
supports your goal.

David Lang

On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Shane Turner wrote:

> [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.
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>