On 8.5.2013, at 12.20, Steven Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08.05.2013 11:07, Dave Taht wrote: >> Unless you wish to maintain these modifications forever, it is helpful >> to seek consensus with the mainline developers of these tools to push >> your patches in a mutually acceptible form. I would suspect that dnsmasq >> and odhcp6c devs would be amiable to a discussion at the very least. > Speaking for odhcp6c I have looked into the homenet changes yesterday and I > don't see it as a big hassle to merge these features into the main branch at > some point once they have an official IANA number and the specs are somewhat > stable. > > Also feel free to contact me if you are thinking about getting anything > IPv6-related upstream to OpenWrt and we can discuss that or you can of course > also use the official channels, mailing lists and so on.
That's underlying problem with both dnsmasq and odhcp6c forked changes - we use IOS-specific prefix class option # that is NOT from IANA, and I'd rather not see it in wide use for obvious reasons. And as a general point on odhcp6c front, I think a better method of expressing 'extra prefix-specificoptions' should be found than just adding more entries to the CSV list of ENV_PREFIXES. In my experience, long lists of CSV-style entries become rather awkward to handle if you want to be futureproof; key=value within (or something else) is much better. Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
