OK, In general it feels like this is a bit lower priority than many other topics ...
I propose: let's create a "LAVA lab IPv6 support" roadmap card where we collect the elements of IPv6 support. Milestone forecast for delivery would be April or May 2013 for now I guess. Anyone volunteers to create the roadmap card stub? On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Michael Hudson-Doyle <michael.hud...@linaro.org> wrote: > 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 -- 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
