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 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
