Another three weeks have passed. So I am interested if there is the chance to get this merged (including after adjusting this according to some feedback) or not at all. In case of a rejection, I am super motivated to start my OpenWrt fork - because I depend on this feature and don't want to patch it in on the devices that need it.
Reminder: This patch is from the January The feedback could be: I will check/review it during the next two months. But the current situation is frustrating. Am Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 09:03:05AM +0100, schrieb Jonas Lochmann: > I want to continue this topic. For those who don't remember a short summary: > > - this is for use in combination with mwan3 to keep individual addresses > for the internal devices with IPv6 > - this is NOT NPTv6 and NPTv6 would not work; devices know their public > IPs and a stateless aproach never knows if a particular reply packet > must be rewritten and to which prefix it must be rewritten (the hosts > in the internal network have IPs (plural) and could have used any of > them to start the outbound connection) > - the problem is so specific that there is no standard for it; > I had a conversation with the IPv6 WG about it [1] > - NAT with IPv6 seems to be a political issue in standards [2] > - the "normal" IPv6 NAT is not standardized either (as far as I know) > > [1] > https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/thread/HQRLNKT7O6H7CIO4QVBNNOKWOOLTU5DQ/ > [2] > https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/thread/HQRLNKT7O6H7CIO4QVBNNOKWOOLTU5DQ/#OGDOKF4LR6GHOJK4L3X4V2DLUK2A27BV _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
