----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Brown" <will...@firstyear.id.au> > > On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 00:01 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:48 PM, William Brown > > <will...@firstyear.id.au> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 21:06 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > >> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Jaroslav Reznik > > >> <jrez...@redhat.com> 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
