Bug#989162: bridge-utils: ifupdown scripts should not unconditionally disable IPv6 on physical interface

2022-10-06 Thread Arturo Borrero Gonzalez
On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 14:33:29 +0200 Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote: Imagine this setup: eno1 -- physical base device eno1. -- vlan sub-interface eno1. -- vlan sub-interface br01 -- bridge device I add eno1. and eno1. to br01 as ports. I discovered that if use a more

Bug#989162: bridge-utils: ifupdown scripts should not unconditionally disable IPv6 on physical interface

2022-09-29 Thread Arturo Borrero Gonzalez
On Sun, 06 Feb 2022 08:58:38 +0100 Anton Khirnov wrote: Quoting Santiago Garcia Mantinan (2022-02-05 22:56:09) > Well, having IPv6 addresses attached to those ports can also be undesirable, Could you please explain why do you think so? It would be good to have the reason documented somewhere,

Bug#989162: bridge-utils: ifupdown scripts should not unconditionally disable IPv6 on physical interface

2022-02-06 Thread Anton Khirnov
Quoting Santiago Garcia Mantinan (2022-02-05 22:56:09) > Well, having IPv6 addresses attached to those ports can also be undesirable, Could you please explain why do you think so? It would be good to have the reason documented somewhere, as this behavior was quite surprising to me. > I really

Bug#989162: bridge-utils: ifupdown scripts should not unconditionally disable IPv6 on physical interface

2022-02-05 Thread Santiago Garcia Mantinan
> This is NOT about addresses on bridge ports (and I agree those are not > needed or desirable), but the case where the bridge port is a VLAN Ok. > interface. Then the current code prevents you from using not just the > VLAN interface (e.g. eth0.3), but also the underlying physical interface >

Bug#989162: bridge-utils: ifupdown scripts should not unconditionally disable IPv6 on physical interface

2022-02-03 Thread Anton Khirnov
Hi, Quoting Santiago Garcia Mantinan (2022-02-03 23:09:43) > On Xan 20 2022, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > Attaching a patch. I still couldn't think of a reason this code should > > ever disable IPv6 on the physical interface, so it's removed > > unconditionally. If anyone can think of such a reason,

Bug#989162: bridge-utils: ifupdown scripts should not unconditionally disable IPv6 on physical interface

2022-02-03 Thread Santiago Garcia Mantinan
On Xan 20 2022, Anton Khirnov wrote: > Attaching a patch. I still couldn't think of a reason this code should > ever disable IPv6 on the physical interface, so it's removed > unconditionally. If anyone can think of such a reason, then I guess an > option could be added? Well, the thing here is

Bug#989162: bridge-utils: ifupdown scripts should not unconditionally disable IPv6 on physical interface

2022-01-20 Thread Anton Khirnov
Attaching a patch. I still couldn't think of a reason this code should ever disable IPv6 on the physical interface, so it's removed unconditionally. If anyone can think of such a reason, then I guess an option could be added? -- Anton Khirnov From f8691b90f83c2058d82ac9b173b351ce3aa5b714 Mon Sep

Bug#989162: bridge-utils: ifupdown scripts should not unconditionally disable IPv6 on physical interface

2021-05-27 Thread Anton Khirnov
Package: bridge-utils Version: 1.7-1 Severity: normal Tags: ipv6 Dear Maintainer, when using the network/interfaces scripts to set up a bridge, they will automatically and unconditionally disable ipv6 not only on the ports added to the bridge, but also on the underlying physical device (if the