Hi Jukka, On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 08:30:04AM +0000, jukka.rissa...@nokia.com wrote: > Hi Samuel, > > ext Samuel Ortiz wrote: > > Hi Jukka, > > > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 03:38:18PM +0200, Jukka Rissanen wrote: > >> --- > >> doc/service-api.txt | 11 +++++++++++ > >> 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/doc/service-api.txt b/doc/service-api.txt index > >> 9695059..da06898 100644 --- a/doc/service-api.txt > >> +++ b/doc/service-api.txt > >> @@ -332,6 +332,17 @@ Properties string State [readonly] > >> > >> The current configured IPv4 gateway. > >> > >> + boolean 6to4 [readonly] > >> + > >> + If set to true, the service will create 6to4 > >> + tunnel if the service IPv4 address is not > >> + private. Default value is false meaning that > >> + 6to4 tunnel is not created. Only one tunnel > >> + is created even if there are more than one > >> + active service that have public IPv4 address. > >> + Tunnel is created if it provides internet > >> + connectivity. > > So I'd like to simplify that and really leave it as a readonly > > property. > > So user would not be able to disable 6to4 then, is this really what we want > to do? > Yes, I think that is fine.
> > The idea would be for ConnMan to enable 6to4 in one single case: IPv6 > > is enabled, set to autoconfiguration, and didn't get a router > > sollicitaion answer. Then we want to try to start 6to4. I'm not sure > > how easy it would be to check if we got a route sollicitation answer > > or not though... > > We can send solicitation message and catch the answer. I have some code from > earlier project for doing this, that just need to get ported to connman. > Great :) Cheers, Samuel. -- Intel Open Source Technology Centre http://oss.intel.com/ _______________________________________________ connman mailing list connman@connman.net http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman
