, more than two
years and four releases later, it still is false. *sigh*
> It would be REALLY nice if we can get this into F17 this time.
+1
The changes required to make Fedora properly support IPv6 out of the box
are few and trivial. Please don't drag them out for yet another release.
I
describing occur in 0.9.2-1 (see bug #797524), but I've
not seen it with 0.9.3-0.2.git20120215.
Regards,
--
Tore Anderson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
s this problem is attached, please apply.
Best regards,
--
Tore Anderson
diff --git a/libnm-util/nm-setting-ip4-config.c b/libnm-util/nm-setting-ip4-config.c
index db5a531..54cf036 100644
--- a/libnm-util/nm-setting-ip4-config.c
+++ b/libnm-util/nm-setting-ip4-config.c
@
actually apply the patches
and be done with it.
> Looking forward, we might at some point want to explicitly 'support'
> IPv6 in the release criteria, by specifying that 'connect to the
> network' means all permutations of IPv4 / IPv6 networks should work...
Yes please.
fe80::/10" safe. Whether or not the
DHCPv6 client will *always* use a link-local source address, however, is
something I guess you'd have to review the source code to verify.
Best regards,
--
Tore Anderson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
oblems with it being included either, if it
makes anyone happier.
Best regards,
--
Tore Anderson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
* Adam Williamson
>> Yes please. Besides, you promised as much in the F12 release notes...
>
> I'm _pretty_ sure I didn't write those. =)
I meant «you» as in «The Fedora Project». ;-)
--
Tore Anderson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fed
* Tom Callaway
> On 03/02/2012 04:39 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> This one *most likely* works (it assumes /sbin/dhclient in Fedora will
>> *always* use a link-local source address when building a DHCPv6 request.
>> I believe that is the case, but I have not reviewed its sou
see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=801182
I did not nominate this one as a blocker yet though, as I don't know if
firewalld will indeed be made the default solution for F17. However, if
it does, #801182 needs to be a release blocker as well.
Best regards,
--
Tore Anders
y well, so that from the end user's
perspective, it always Just Works, regardless of how the network he is
connecting to is set up.
--
Tore Anderson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
affic whenever DHCPv4 traffic is allowed
(and vice versa).
To the best of my knowledge, currently, DHCPv4 client traffic is always
allowed in Fedora. (And I'm sure that changing that would cause an
outrage.) Which in turn means that the answer to your question is a
resounding YES.
Best regar
at this point in time, where most networks have
neither RAs or DHCPv6 service.
Best regards,
--
Tore Anderson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
, on WiFi, it appears the default IPv6 method has
been Automatic for quite some time.)
(Of course, this entire discussion is now moot.)
--
Tore Anderson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hi Dan,
* Dan Williams
> On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 14:52 +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
>
>> That is true, however, if IPv6 completes first, and IPv4 (still running
>> in the background) eventually ends up failing, the *entire connection*
>> will be torn down - including th
icular section 3.3).
This means that if NM's connectivity check were to report that it had
"site" connectivity when only having ULA addresses configured, it would
actually be incorrect as far as IPv6 terminology goes. It would be more
correct to say "not internet" or s
15 matches
Mail list logo
