On 2/3/17 3:42 AM, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 10:14:04AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: >> On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 10:54 +0100, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: >>> >>> - IPv6 support: since that was the focus of CC, at least mention that >>> nothing was intentionally broken (and maybe there were some >>> improvement?)] >> >> What was the IPv6 problem? > > Nothing, hopefully :) What I meant is that LEDE should work as well as > OpenWRT CC with respect to IPv6 support. This is currently implicit, > because the release notes do not mention IPv6 at all. I was wondering if > it would make sense to mention that IPv6 support remains very good.
If it were only true. Earlier this month I experienced a raft of ipv6 inter-related bugs in an odhcp6c+dhcpv6-pd or 6rd environment, mostly around timers - both in expiry of and refresh of routes of addresses. Various bits of improved code has been landing since, and I have not got back on it (busy on wifi and atf). I think much of the evidence points at a bug in netifd in pushing out or refeshing routes that expire, compounded by noprefixroute being added to the kernel in the last 2 years, compounded by a bit of bit-rot on some of the scripting interfaces... It would be good to have more people get on this, but I would, given the release schedule, deprioritize mention of ipv6 support, and try to aggressively attack all the issues in a subsequent round. _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
