Hi Steven, On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 10:28:16AM +0200, Steven Barth wrote: > On 02.05.2015 13:33, Daniel Golle wrote: > >r45593 includes l2tp_ip6 in the kmod-l2tp-ip package. > >This is not feasible for several reasons: > > - in a given setup one usually uses either l2tp_ip or > > l2tp_ip6, but never both > I disagree here, if you e.g. use a hostname and resolve that before > connecting this would dynamically resolve to either IPv6 or IPv4.
Given that there are the right support-tools around iproute2 to resolve the hostname and pick the right local address, this is indeed a valid scenario I didn't consider (due to the lack of tools actually doing the magic). For now I've been using L2TP with pre-configured addresses and predictable use of either address family. (see: https://gist.github.com/dangowrt/a1b816b509a8def28c0e ) Anyway, I get that argument, but it could still be solved by adding +IPV6:kmod-l2tp-ip6 as a dependency to kmod-l2tp-ip. If it's really about the packaging overhead, it would also be possible to only include l2tp_ip6.ko in FILES if IPV6 is set, thus getting rid of the kmod-ipv6 dependency on non-IPv6 systems. In the long-run, I dream about native L2TPv3 integration in netifd using netlink, just like GRE tunnels are supported in http://git.openwrt.org/?p=project/netifd.git;a=blob;f=system-linux.c That could then take care of resolving hostnames, adding host- routes and all that... What are you using to setup pseudo-wires in OpenWrt after https://github.com/openwrt/packages/commit/08ae49377644067d2ad3e004f7fc1644e128b6c4 ? > > - l2tp_ip doesn't depend on ipv6 > True, I'm not sure if it makes sense to have IPv6 as an external module any > longer since its been a while and its enabled by default anyway. I guess > after the CC branch we might want to enable it in the default kernel config > and remove the module packaging. This would also save some space in the end. There are still many cases where people use ImageBuilder to have a firmware without IPv6, so they can use the space for other things. I don't like that approach either and only know about it because these systems then don't respond to IPv6 link-local multicast ping which is one of my most used tools in my personal maintainance toolbox... So I generally agree, but it's something to happen in the future which hasn't happened yet... And won't we one day package IPv4 as an optional module instead then? > > - versioning of kmod-l2tp-ip doesn't indicate that it > > now does include support for L2TP-over-IPv6 > Versioning is based on the kernel, so I don't think I get this argument. Right, the fact that versioning is based on the kernel is exactly the problem here. Imagine that I'm using a 3.14-based locally maintained OpenWrt branch and provide updates via a feed. Now some user asked me for l2tp_ip6 support and I'd like to tell her, "yes, it's available now. Go ahead an install kmod-...". Now the user already got kmod-l2tp-ip installed, so opkg won't re-install the package as it believes it's up-to-date. I guess that should explain it. Cheers Daniel _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel