From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0062475370761904480==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: =?unknown-8bit?q?R=C3=A9mi?= Denis-Courmont Subject: Re: [RFC 1/5] gprs: Update documentation for IPv6 Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:41:05 +0200 Message-ID: <201101281641.05376.remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com> In-Reply-To: List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============0062475370761904480== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Friday 28 January 2011 14:49:16 ext Sjur Br=C3=A6ndeland, you wrote: > I think it would be nice if we could keep only one interface here. > It's a bit messy that the difference between R7 and R8 > networks will be visible to the users like this. > = > So when in a R7 network the uplink traffic should be filtered into the > right ipv4 and ipv6 pdp-connection automagically. > I know STE will support this in the modem firmware. > = > If firmware doesn't support this perhaps this could also be handled > in the kernel drivers. This should be doable for phonet (and Caif), Not really no. The API to create a Phonet gprs interface is tightly coupled = with the underlying pipe. There are no easy ways to patch the driver to use = two pipes, nor the corresponding userspace code. It would actually be much easier to write a bonding driver to rule both IPv= 4 = and IPv6 instances of the existing driver. It would also be more generic, n= ot = Phonet/CAIF/PPP-specific, although it would probably not work for fake Ethe= rnet = devices. However it is questionable why we would optimize this when the only custome= r = is ConnMan, and the only use case is 3GPP Rel7. Applications don't need to = care whether IPv4 and IPv6 are through a single or two separate interfaces. = They just use the socket API. -- = R=C3=A9mi Denis-Courmont Nokia Devices R&D, Maemo Software, Helsinki --===============0062475370761904480==--