On Wed, 2012-03-14 at 20:47 +0100, Lars Seipel wrote:
On Wednesday 14 March 2012 13:36:06 Dan Williams wrote:
> Whether we care enough about this regression (if you want to call it
> that) versus enabling default IPv6 connectivity I don't know, I tend to
> think we suck up the regression.
Please do. The current behaviour of tearing down working IPv6 connections is
just painful IMHO.
If the IPv6 method is "ignore" (which is the current default) then NM
shouldn't be touching IPv6 stuff on that interface; kernel-assigned
routes and addresses should be there and untouched by NM. Is that not
the case?
Dan
> Next up, since AFAIK fdxx:: is a non-routable private network
(like 10/8
> right?) should NM say that we're only connected to a site-local network
> here?
That's probably the best thing to do, in both cases, IPv4 and IPv6. What NM
definitely should not do is say that the connection failed while it's perfectly
connected to a local network where there is just no link to the internet.
Thanks,
Lars