Hi Marcel,
> Hi Mika,
>
> > > I am not sure it is a good idea to make ConnMan do that.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> we need to chat with Samuel about this. I foresee a bunch of issues
> trying to handle two context properly. This needs a bit more deeper
> thinking on how things are done.
Ok. But again, can't really comment unless you guys come out with the actual
issues.
> > fact, I would already have trialed atmodem support for IPv6
> > but that was blocked because of the lack of IPV6CP support in
> > oFono PPP implementation. Too bad.
>
> We have a TODO item open for that. So far nobody really bothered,
> because either the hardware did not support it or the network did not.
>
> But hey, patches are welcome ;)
I'm more interested in the core support at the moment.
> > > My concern is also on how we handle the Tethering cases
> > > properly. I have
> > > not yet spent enough time to think about it, but I have
> concerns here.
> >
> > Ok. Can you outline your concerns so we can talk about them?
>
> We are currently Tethering to one specific service with the assumption
> that it maps to one interface of the kernel. If that assumption is not
> true anymore, then we have to re-think this. Not sure if we should be
> bothered.
IPv4 and IPv6 are completely orthogonal, so I don't really see the problem
you're alluding to here.
> I have no clear answers at the moment.
I believe the main question really is "How to do tethering with IPv6?". Clearly
it needs to be thought out but I don't see why that work should block
implementation of basic IPv6 access. You can start with IPv4 only tethering and
just ignore IPv6 in the beginning.
> > > So right now I would prefer to sit ipv6 out until we have
> > > proper ipv4v6
> > > context support in the network and the modems.
> >
> > I'd like to progress with this. We also have people who are
> keen to help out on the connman side. Just sitting and
> waiting for better times is not really an approach I'd prefer to take.
> >
> > Currently, we only discussing whether the "Interface"
> setting is needed separately in IPv4 and IPv6 settings or
> not. That's a minor detail as far as I am concerned. For now,
> allowing separate network interfaces for IPv4 and IPv6 is
> convenient for testing the IPv6 support on current modems. If
> it turns out to be hugely difficult to manage separate
> interface on connman side, we can always restrict the
> approach and drop support for older modems when rel8 modems
> are available.
>
> So I like the ST-Ericsson approach where this details is abstracted in
> the modem firmware.
That's not an answer though, unless we only plan to support STE hardware in
oFono.
Br,
MikaL
_______________________________________________
ofono mailing list
ofono@ofono.org
http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
