DHCPv6 *still* broken for F17 alpha
dcbw at redhat.com
Thu Mar 15 14:52:30 UTC 2012
On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 20:47 +0100, Lars Seipel wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2012 13:36:06 Dan Williams wrote:
> > Whether we care enough about this regression (if you want to call it
> > that) versus enabling default IPv6 connectivity I don't know, I tend to
> > think we suck up the regression.
> Please do. The current behaviour of tearing down working IPv6 connections is
> just painful IMHO.
If the IPv6 method is "ignore" (which is the current default) then NM
shouldn't be touching IPv6 stuff on that interface; kernel-assigned
routes and addresses should be there and untouched by NM. Is that not
> > Next up, since AFAIK fdxx:: is a non-routable private network (like 10/8
> > right?) should NM say that we're only connected to a site-local network
> > here?
> That's probably the best thing to do, in both cases, IPv4 and IPv6. What NM
> definitely should not do is say that the connection failed while it's perfectly
> connected to a local network where there is just no link to the internet.
More information about the devel