On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 00:01 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:48 PM, William Brown <will...@firstyear.id.au> wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 21:06 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Jaroslav Reznik <jrez...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > = Features/DualstackNetworking = > >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DualstackNetworking > > > > I think that this is a really good goal. I can identify the following > > that probably need work as part of this to improve the user experience. > > > > 1) For a user, there is no option in NetworkManager to enable dhcp6c > > from the gui. By Default, this option is "not listed" in ifcfg-ethX, > > even as a DHCP6C=no, making it hard to find and enable. > > > > 2) Privacy extensions still has no UI to enable / disable from > > NetworkManager. > > > > 3) dhclient prefix delegation often has issues on pppoe sessions, > > meaning that you will often get the pppoe session dropping out, ipv4 > > will recover correctly, but ipv6 will not re-request a prefix until some > > timeout, usually an hour, in which time all ipv6 services are > > unavailable. This causes DNS timeouts, webpages to respond slowly, email > > accounts to not fetch etc. > > There's also other issues with NM and ppp/pppoe with IPv6. In the > service provider space this side of IPv6 is still a moving target with > some standards evolving to enable ISPs to push IPv6 subnets out to > consumer routers and the like. There's still bugs like [1] to resolve > in NM, I know it's closed but that was to open individual bugs and I > think there's some bits left to do to properly deal with RFC 5072 for > v6 over ppp. > > Peter > > [1] https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=593813
I don't necessarily mean that NM should support PD for ppp interfaces, more that "some parts" of the whole IPv6 experience still need work for them to operate correctly. However, saying that, it would be lovely if in my ifcfg-ppp I could just add a "DHCP6C-PD" option or the like, and have it work .... However, as others have said, the "scope" of this work should be defined. How will the "outcomes" be assessed? It may be a selfish view, but I would like to suggest that a good goal would be for a fedora machine to act as a ipv4 and ipv6 router with PD (and minimal fuss), as well as providing ipv4 and ipv6 services such as radvd, dhcp and dhcp6. These services should probably be defined as well. As already stated, a good goal would be to try having an "ipv6 only" system, as this will quickly highlight many of the issues around ipv6 usage on a network. The reason I suggest the "router" is that it is one of the more 'complex' network oriented setups, and will implicitly test basic ipv6 connectivity ie link local, daemons like bind, etc. Perhaps even a "disconnected" network that relies on link local only? -- Sincerely, William Brown pgp.mit.edu http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x3C0AC6DAB2F928A2
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
