DHCPv6 *still* broken for F17 alpha

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Fri Mar 2 07:14:45 UTC 2012

On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 15:43 -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> 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?

If there's a bug against this, it could be nominated as a Beta or Final

It'd be a conditional breach of the 'must be able to connect to the
network and install updates' criterion - the condition being 'IPv6 only
network'. So that would mean we'd kick around how significant the 'IPv6
only network' case is, and whether it's yet big enough that we can
consider a bug in that path a release blocker. I wouldn't want to
predict the outcome of such a discussion, but it might well be worth

Looking forward, we might at some point want to explicitly 'support'
IPv6 in the release criteria, by specifying that 'connect to the
network' means all permutations of IPv4 / IPv6 networks should work...
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora

More information about the devel mailing list