Hi Jonas, On Sat, Dec 12, 2020 at 08:05:40AM +0100, Jonas Bonn wrote: > Yes, you're probably right. Given that IPv6 isn't really optional in > contexts where this driver is relevant, [...]
I strongly contest this statement. GTP is used in a lot of legacy contexts without any IPv6 requirements whatsoever. _particularly_ so on the outer/ transport level, where even GSMA IR.34 in still states: > The IPX Provider's and Service Provider's networks must support IPv4 > addressing and routing. IPv6 addressing and routing is recommended. So there is (still) no requirement for IPv6 on the transport level between cellular operators. The fact that this gtp module has existed until today with pure IPv4 support has something to say about that. I'm of course all in support of finally getting IPv6 support merged (via your patches!) - but I see absolutely no reason why a GTP kernel module would have a mandatory dependency on IPv6. -- - Harald Welte <lafo...@gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
