Alexander Sack <a...@linaro.org> writes:
> 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...
What does this mean? FWIW, the ethernet interfaces on machines in the
lab appear to have IPv6 addresses:
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 68:b5:99:be:54:8c
inet addr:192.168.1.10 Bcast:255.255.0.0 Mask:255.255.0.0
inet6 addr: fe80::6ab5:99ff:febe:548c/64 Scope:Link <-------------
HERE
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:20176938 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:37330059 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:11878897411 (11.8 GB) TX bytes:50409227661 (50.4 GB)
Interrupt:31 Memory:f8000000-f8012800
but I don't know if that means very much (I can't even get ping6 to talk
to the address of eth0 on the host I'm running it on -- but I know very
little about IPv6 in general).
One thing that maaaaybe we'll have to watch for is that until we have an
IPv6 internet address we don't end up preferring AAAA records over A
records when trying to connect to hosts that have both.
> 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.
It seems Zen don't really support this yet. We can do 6in4/6to4 or
whatever it's called if we want -- I guess the advantage of this would
be being able to route to devices in the lab without having to bounce
through linaro-gateway[0] but I don't know if that would be useful
really[1].
[0] This is also a risk if we don't configure things correctly! We
currently assume that various admin interfaces with weak passwords
are not directly routeable. I presume that configuring this sort of
thing is part of setting up 6in4 though.
[1] The person doing the routing would need to have access to the IPv6
internet too presumably, which I certainly don't have currently.
Cheers,
mwh
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
