Notice: IPv6 breaking issues tentatively considered blocker for F17

[Glen Turner]

Hi,

I am the network engineer at Australia's Academic and Research Network
responsible for assisting the deployment of IPv6 across Australian
universities. Your posting was bought to my attention.

Your phrasing of the condition for blocking is pretty broad: there are
lots of ways to break IPv6, just as there are with IPv4, and just as
with IPv4 not all of them are significant enough to be blocking.

Can I suggest the following as a starting point:
 - failure in configuration of interface addresses with a link scope
address via stateless address autoconfiguration should block
 - failure in configuration of interface addresses with a global scope
via stateless address autoconfiguration should block
 - failure in configuration of interface addresses with a global scope
via manual configuration should block
 - failure in configuration of DNS forwarding via stateless DHCP6 should
block
 - failure in configuration of DNS forwarding via RAs should block
 - failure of connectivity of network ::1/128 (localhost) of all
services should block
 - failure of unicast or multicast connectivity of link local addressing
of allowed services should block
 - failure of unicast connectivity of global addressing of allowed
services should block
 - failure of connectivity of ICMP6 service for codes <= 127 should
block

Non-stateless DHCP6 is primarily used by ISPs to configure customer
routers. Those routers present SLAAC to their downstream users.

Non-stateless DHCP6 is also used by enterprises who wish to parallel
their existing management of computers via IPv4 DHCP into IPv6. In my
view that is a poor network design choice, but there is no denying that
it is a choice made by some enterprise networks.

At this point in time you could deploy a IPv6 with manual configuration
and with SLAAC (with both stateless DHCP6 and RAs to configure DNS) and
make most people happy. The significance of the proportion of people
made unhappy may or may not be enough for a release blocking bug (as
opposed to simple lack of support for that IPv6 feature) -- that's
really your choice.

It also depends if statefull DHCP6 host configuration was supported in a
previous release, in that case a regression leads to such a complicated
scenario for network engineers and systems administrators that the bug
should be release blocking.

Cheers,
Glen

-- 
 Glen Turner <http://www.gdt.id.au/~gdt/>