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 3C9F121F0A2 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 06:42:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.178.21] (unknown [212.255.243.50]) by chi.subsignal.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2EB701260DF; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:42:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <50C5F4D7.10509@openwrt.org> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:42:31 +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: Michael Richardson References: <24882.1355094243@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <5601.1355149391@obiwan.sandelman.ca> In-Reply-To: <5601.1355149391@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cerowrt-users , Simon Kelley Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-users] IPv6 router advertisements on custom interfaces X-BeenThere: cerowrt-users@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Support for user problems regarding cerowrt List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:42:34 -0000 For OpenWrt, npt66 won't be the default method - instead the default should be to split up the WAN prefix to distribute to downstream interfaces and fallback to relaying if there are no prefixes. I personally think npt66 would not make much sense outside of multi-uplink situations at least for plain OpenWrt, I cannot speak for CeroWrt. On 10.12.2012 15:23, Michael Richardson wrote: >>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Taht writes: > Dave> Also planned is to (once the 3.7 kernel lands) make npt66 the default > Dave> (for most users). So in a couple weeks, all the underlying ipv6 > Dave> infrastructure in openwrt and cerowrt is going to change. > > Pardon? >