On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 10:03 +0300, Pantelis Koukousoulas wrote: > Well, the reason that I didn't try to implement IPv6 in the first > version is that unfortunately my provider still doesn't support it, > so I wouldn't be able to test if it works :(
:( > Is it true that pretty much the only thing needed for IPv6 is to > add the "ipv6" option to pppd? (plus any networkmanager > specific stuff that may be needed). It would be 'ipv6 ,' because the 'ipv6' option takes a parameter for the local and remote interface identifier. That just negotiates link-local IPv6 addresses though. To get the *global* address (and subnet for routing) you have to do something else. That can either be a PPP extension or DHCPv6; I think the latter is favoured. I can give access to an l2tp connection to someone who seriously wants to work on this. > If it is like this, it won't be hard to add support so that you can > test the code and maybe also look into adding this to the other > ppp links as well. > > > >> + vpi = nm_setting_adsl_get_vpi (adsl_pppoa); > >> + vci = nm_setting_adsl_get_vci (adsl_pppoa); > >> + encapsulation = nm_setting_adsl_get_encapsulation > >> (adsl_pppoa); > >> + vpivci = g_strdup_printf("%s.%s", vpi, vci); > > > > You want to specify device number there, not just assume there's only > > one. There are dual-port PCI ADSL cards that work quite nicely in > > Linux... > > I see, you mean like 0.8.35 and 1.8.35 for the second port. > I will try to fix this. I talked to Dan on IRC about this; it requires a patch like the one at http://bigw.org/~dan/atm-ifindex.patch (which I've now tested and it seems fine: [root@solos ~]# grep ^ /sys/class/atm/*/atmindex /sys/class/atm/solos-pci0/atmindex: 0 /sys/class/atm/solos-pci1/atmindex: 1 However, it does have leading whitespace in the 'atmindex' file which I wasn't expecting. Was that intentional, Dan?) > I posted a "proof of concept" implementation of PPPoE patch in this list: > http://www.mail-archive.com/networkmanager-list@gnome.org/msg17967.html > > Could you take a look? This was just enough code to get me a > successful PPPoE connection, but with your help/advise I could > improve it to be more generally useful :) You are hard-coding the name 'nas0' for the virtual Ethernet interface, which you shouldn't. And I think I'd be tempted not to use the separate br2684ctl program; the amount of code you have to 'manage' the external tool *far* exceeds the amount of relevant code in br2684ctl.c itself :) > >> + nm_cmd_line_add_string (cmd, "noipdefault"); > > > > Why's that unconditional? Do we not have the option to set static IP > > addresses on a PPP connection? It's useful in some cases. > > My impression is that NetworkManager wants it this way, it gets the IP > that the provider assigns but this doesn't mean it will actually set > this IP, if you say that you want a static IP it will use the one you > provide instead. Hm, OK. Although in PPP you're supposed to *tell* the other side what IP address you're using in a ConfReq packet. -- dwmw2 _______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list