On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Pigott <dave.pig...@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I was just discussing IPv6 with Philip Colmer, our new IT Services Manager > (cc'd on this mail), and it strikes me that we should at least be considering > dual running at some point in the future, i.e. providing both v4 and v6. I'm > not clear what the ramifications are, or as yet whether Zen will support it. > Philip has experience with this, and seems to remember that Zen do support > it, but I'll bang an e-mail out to them to check. > > The reason for this e-mail is to start a discussion as to whether we think > it's worth raising a BP, or if we can ignore this issue. > > Thoughts, comments and brickbats welcome.
I am quite sure that supporting IPv6 inside the LAVA lab is a worthwhile thing to do... Whether we need public IPv6 or not, I don't have any strong feelings. I see that IPv6 is probably modern; so if it comes more or less for free I would say: let's think through this, make a plan and decide. > > Thanks > > Dave > _______________________________________________ > linaro-validation mailing list > linaro-validat...@lists.linaro.org > http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation -- Alexander Sack Director, Linaro Platform Engineering http://www.linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
