Hi Marcel, 

> I am not sure it is a good idea to make ConnMan do that.

Why is that?

> And to be honest for PPP, just doing IPv4 seems acceptable 
> since PPP is
> bad idea in the first place. It is a limitation I am willing 
> to accept.

Yeah, PPP is not really a requirement for us, although it would be convenient to have it for testing. As a matter of fact, I would already have trialed atmodem support for IPv6 but that was blocked because of the lack of IPV6CP support in oFono PPP implementation. Too bad.

> My concern is also on how we handle the Tethering cases 
> properly. I have
> not yet spent enough time to think about it, but I have concerns here.

Ok. Can you outline your concerns so we can talk about them?

> So right now I would prefer to sit ipv6 out until we have 
> proper ipv4v6
> context support in the network and the modems.

I'd like to progress with this. We also have people who are keen to help out on the connman side. Just sitting and waiting for better times is not really an approach I'd prefer to take.

Currently, we only discussing whether the "Interface" setting is needed separately in IPv4 and IPv6 settings or not. That's a minor detail as far as I am concerned. For now, allowing separate network interfaces for IPv4 and IPv6 is convenient for testing the IPv6 support on current modems. If it turns out to be hugely difficult to manage separate interface on connman side, we can always restrict the approach and drop support for older modems when rel8 modems are available. 

Br,

	MikaL