On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 06:48:00PM +0100, Thomas Woerner wrote: > On 03/01/2012 04:52 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: >> On Thu, 1 Mar 2012, Dan Williams wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 17:20 +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: >>>> * Jerry James >>>> >>>>> Interesting. I'm seeing kind of the inverse problem: >>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=771130. Could that be >>>>> related to the issues discussed in this thread? >>>> >>>> Hard to tell, without (preferably debug-level) logs. I have the same >>>> problem you're describing occur in 0.9.2-1 (see bug #797524), but I've >>>> not seen it with 0.9.3-0.2.git20120215. >>> >>> 0.9.4 snapshots do not require both methods to complete (with either >>> success or failure) before saying the machine is connected. Thus if >>> IPv4 completes first, NM will say it's connected, and continue IPv6 in >>> the background. And vice versa. >> >> But that does not yet address the dhcpv6 ip6tables ACCEPT rule that is >> missing right? >> > There will be a dhcpv6 service entry for firewalld soon and later on > also for system-config-firewall. > > Where how and when it will and could be enabled will be evaluated.
I'm going to have to chime in and say we /really/ need this in the default /etc/sysconfig/ip6tables sooner rather than later. I would hope that this could be done immediately (for F17+), rather than waiting for the related firewalld and system-config-firewall changes to be "evaluated". Who does this "evaluation" and how do I contribute to that discussion? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
