Re: Proposed F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - proper dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 networking
- Original Message - > From: "Miloslav Trmač" > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Jaroslav Reznik > wrote: > > = Features/DualstackNetworking = > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DualstackNetworking > > (Sending to the list instead of using the wiki talk page to hopefully > gather more information from networking experts. The recent-ish > bugzilla activity in this space does suggest that this is a good > topic to revisit in detail, thanks for taking the effort on.) Thanks! > 1. So what is the _precise_ scope of the ''proposed feature''? For > example, does "glibc: name resolution must work properly" mean that > you have some specific proposals to change glibc? Yes. I identified a bunch of problems in glibc and commented on previously identified problems: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=getaddrinfo&list_id=7854 Now I'm writing and submitting patches. But it will take time. > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Networking/NameResolution/ADDRCONFIG > suggests changing glibc as one of the options. Have you decided > which > option you propose? In general, glibc maintainers' signoff or at > least significant discussion would probably be required for any glibc > change of this kind. FWIW, historically it was recommended to have > AI_ADDRCONFIG enabled, see > http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/userapi-ipv6.html .) It is now pretty clear that we need to do #3 and #4 (in this order) and then start recommending AI_ADDRCONFIG for connect(), sendto() and other stuff again. But I found more fundamental problems in getaddrinfo() while playing with the code and while reading IPv6-related bug reports. Ulrich's documentation is unfortunately not useful as it was written without practical IPv6 skills and testing. I recommend to ignore it in favor of the resources on Fedora Wiki. > 2. We already have a guideline requiring IPv6 > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=PackagingGuidelines#Networking_Support > ); to the extent that this feature would propose specific ways to use > the API, the packaging guideline should point to documentation that > describes the correct way. Good point. Specific recommedations that are evolving will be part of this feature. > It would be great to get a wide review of the proposed approach before any > extensive effort to > modify many > packages starts. Actually, it's easier than that. Most important packages either use getaddrinfo() or are moving towards it. Many of them (if not most) set AI_ADDRCONFIG. As we are now going to fix AI_ADDRCONFIG to make it actually useful and not harmful, that would mean only packages that are buggy already would need fixing. Thank you for your feedback, Pavel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - proper dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 networking
- Original Message - > From: "William Brown" > 4) For link local to work "nicely", mDNS name resolution should be > installed and available by default. Avahi can provide such a service > for ipv6. Avahi doesn't work for IPv6 link-local addresses and GLIBC doesn't even allow nss-mdns to work. This only works with FreeBSD libc and patched Avahi/nss-mdns. See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=719178 http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14413 By default, Avahi doesn't work for IPv6 at all, as Lennart swithed it back to IPv4-only. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821127 This is what one of the next features will be about: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ZeroconfNetworking But I can't fix all of that myself and do my regular work in just one release :). Cheers, Pavel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - proper dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 networking
- Original Message - > From: "Tomasz Torcz" > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 08:18:19AM +1030, William Brown wrote: > > > > = Features/DualstackNetworking = > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DualstackNetworking > > > > 1) For a user, there is no option in NetworkManager to enable > > dhcp6c It's started as a reaction to AdvManagedFlag or AdvOtherConfigFlag in router advertisements, as mandated by the RFCs. > > 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. Don't use that. > > 2) Privacy extensions still has no UI to enable / disable from > > NetworkManager. Out of scope of this Feature. But might be suitable for: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NetworkManagerAdvancedIPv6 Probably worth a bug report on gnome-control-center. > > 3) dhclient prefix delegation often has issues on pppoe sessions, Out of scope. No information about that. This would probably need a proper bug report. > Does NetworkManager request prefix delegation nowadays? IPv6 connection sharing is currently not supported in NetworkManager in any way. See: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=593815 > It wasn't > a year ago - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754086 > > -- > Tomasz Torcz Morality must always be based on > practicality. > xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl-- Baron Vladimir Harkonnen > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - proper dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 networking
- Original Message - > From: "Adam Williamson" > > On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 21:06 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Jaroslav Reznik > > wrote: > > > = Features/DualstackNetworking = > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DualstackNetworking > > > > (Sending to the list instead of using the wiki talk page to > > hopefully > > gather more information from networking experts. The recent-ish > > bugzilla activity in this space does suggest that this is a good > > topic > > to revisit in detail, thanks for taking the effort on.) > > > > 1. So what is the _precise_ scope of the ''proposed feature''? For > > Just to second this emotion: I'm very much on the IPv6 train in > general, > but it would be very nice if any changes to very sensitive distro > components - glibc, NetworkManager, stuff like that - could be > decided > and nailed down *quickly*. I don't mind this being a sort of > 'aspirational' feature in general, as it seems to be, but for core > stuff > - critpath - it would be very good to have a clearly defined scope > well > before we start cutting F19 builds. So far I don't intend any modifications to NetworkManager in scope of this feature, except maybe address configuration format which has already been done. I am working on thorough modifications to glibc's getaddrinfo, though. It unfortunately proved to fail in many ways. This is the main priority of the feature, followed by utility libraries (likeglib), and client and server applications. Any help with clarification appreciated. Cheers, Pavel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - proper dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 networking
- Original Message - > From: "William Brown" > > On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 00:01 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:48 PM, William Brown > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 21:06 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Jaroslav Reznik > > >> 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. From my point of view, it is defined as much as possible. It is all about system services and applications that connect, or accept connections over the network and, optionally, uses name resolution. This is mainly about usage of IP addresses and name resolution. > 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), This is out of scope of this feature. But please look at other features not yet submitted: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Networking#Fedora_feature_pages Especially: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NetworkManagerAdvancedIPv6 > as well as providing ipv4 and ipv6 services such as radvd, dhcp and > dhcp6. These have been tested and work. Major use cases documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Networking/Addressing > 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. IPv6-only Fedora also works for me, at least Fedora 17 with the firewalld package installed. > 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 Unfortunately not. Network testing, and especially IPv6/dualstack testing is much more complex than just running an IPv6 system. Therefore even having an advanced IPv6 router on Fedora won't help with that. Again, please look at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NetworkManagerAdvancedIPv6 > ie link local When writing this feature, I wasn't brave enough to include link-local. IPv6 zero configuration networking needs much more work then just fixing a couple of applications and libraries. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ZeroconfNetworking > daemons like bind, etc. Bind is a system service and seems to work rather well. > Perhaps even a "disconnected" network that relies on link local only? As above. Thanks for your feedback, Pavel Šimerda -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - proper dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 networking
On 01/02/2013 05:20 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 03.01.2013 02:08, schrieb John Reiser: >> I'd like to use ipv6 for my computers, >> but my ipv4-only consumer devices (TV, Roku, HVAC, etc.) >> and ipv4-because-ipv6-is-buggy devices (mythtv) >> must continue to inter-operate to/from/with Fedora > that is what "Dualstack" means Good. The point is that ipv4 consumer devices explicitly are part of the deal, and cannot be ignored. Such devices tend to persist for several generations, and many cannot be upgraded. They don't use Fedora shared libraries. Luckily most of them require only dhcp4 and http-over-tcp+ipv4, but their actual implementations which work today in Fedora must continue to work without change for many releases. For instance, dual stacking must not change the latencies of dhcp4. -- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - proper dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 networking
Am 03.01.2013 02:08, schrieb John Reiser: >> = Features/DualstackNetworking = >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DualstackNetworking > > I'd like to use ipv6 for my computers, > but my ipv4-only consumer devices (TV, Roku, HVAC, etc.) > and ipv4-because-ipv6-is-buggy devices (mythtv) > must continue to inter-operate to/from/with Fedora that is what "Dualstack" means signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - proper dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 networking
> = Features/DualstackNetworking = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DualstackNetworking I'd like to use ipv6 for my computers, but my ipv4-only consumer devices (TV, Roku, HVAC, etc.) and ipv4-because-ipv6-is-buggy devices (mythtv) must continue to inter-operate to/from/with Fedora. -- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - proper dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 networking
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 00:01 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:48 PM, William Brown wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 21:06 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Jaroslav Reznik 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
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - proper dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 networking
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:48 PM, William Brown wrote: > On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 21:06 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Jaroslav Reznik 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 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - proper dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 networking
On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 21:06 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > = Features/DualstackNetworking = > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DualstackNetworking > > (Sending to the list instead of using the wiki talk page to hopefully > gather more information from networking experts. The recent-ish > bugzilla activity in this space does suggest that this is a good topic > to revisit in detail, thanks for taking the effort on.) > > 1. So what is the _precise_ scope of the ''proposed feature''? For Just to second this emotion: I'm very much on the IPv6 train in general, but it would be very nice if any changes to very sensitive distro components - glibc, NetworkManager, stuff like that - could be decided and nailed down *quickly*. I don't mind this being a sort of 'aspirational' feature in general, as it seems to be, but for core stuff - critpath - it would be very good to have a clearly defined scope well before we start cutting F19 builds. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - proper dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 networking
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 08:18:19AM +1030, William Brown wrote: > > > = Features/DualstackNetworking = > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DualstackNetworking > > 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, Does NetworkManager request prefix delegation nowadays? It wasn't a year ago - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=754086 -- Tomasz Torcz Morality must always be based on practicality. xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl-- Baron Vladimir Harkonnen -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - proper dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 networking
On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 21:06 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Jaroslav Reznik 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. 4) For link local to work "nicely", mDNS name resolution should be installed and available by default. Avahi can provide such a service for ipv6. Perhaps a good way to test this, would be to try and run a system or network as "ipv6 only", as that will quickly identify short comings of the system. -- 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
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: DualstackNetworking - proper dual stack IPv4 and IPv6 networking
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > = Features/DualstackNetworking = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DualstackNetworking (Sending to the list instead of using the wiki talk page to hopefully gather more information from networking experts. The recent-ish bugzilla activity in this space does suggest that this is a good topic to revisit in detail, thanks for taking the effort on.) 1. So what is the _precise_ scope of the ''proposed feature''? For example, does "glibc: name resolution must work properly" mean that you have some specific proposals to change glibc? (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Networking/NameResolution/ADDRCONFIG suggests changing glibc as one of the options. Have you decided which option you propose? In general, glibc maintainers' signoff or at least significant discussion would probably be required for any glibc change of this kind. FWIW, historically it was recommended to have AI_ADDRCONFIG enabled, see http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/userapi-ipv6.html .) 2. We already have a guideline requiring IPv6 (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=PackagingGuidelines#Networking_Support ); to the extent that this feature would propose specific ways to use the API, the packaging guideline should point to documentation that describes the correct way. It would be great to get a wide review of the proposed approach before any extensive effort to modify many packages starts. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
