Skip to content

Update README, add warning if CBCP is enabled, remove warnings#588

Merged
paulusmack merged 3 commits into
masterfrom
dev
May 22, 2026
Merged

Update README, add warning if CBCP is enabled, remove warnings#588
paulusmack merged 3 commits into
masterfrom
dev

Conversation

@paulusmack
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Update README
Add warning if CBCP is enabled at configure time
Remove warnings

Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
Print a warning at the end of the configure script if the user selects
CBCP, in order to try to work out if anyone is still using it.

Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
@paulusmack
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

I'm about to merge this, update configure.ac to change the version number to 2.5.3, and do the 2.5.3 release. If anyone knows of anything else that really should be in 2.5.3, speak now...

@Neustradamus
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@jkroonza: Can you look this PR and the @paulusmack comment?

@jkroonza
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I need to start working on an alternative for radius for another project too, but that's at least two months out. Other than the potential concerns raised on the README, I have no objections to a new version. Once you've released I can see if Gentoo be the first to package :).

@paulusmack paulusmack merged commit a9fe706 into master May 22, 2026
61 checks passed
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jkroonza jkroonza left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Use it, don't use it :). Other than the dhcpv6relay plugin rewording I'm mostly neutral. The issue I have there is makes it sound like you need it on the client side when it's really aimed at the SP side.

Comment thread README

* The pppoe (PPP over ethernet) plugin now supports maximum
packet sizes greater than 1492 bytes if configured to do so
and the server agrees.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

and the peer agrees.

Sorry, I primarily use pppd on the service provider side :).

Comment thread README
be printed.

* There is now a dhcpv6relay plugin, which provides a DHCPv6
relay for the local system inside pppd.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is for service provider side to generate RA's indicating managed mode and then to forward the incoming DHCPv6 client request to the real DHCPv6 server, as well as manage the routing around the relevant delegations that the DHCPv6 server then provides. Essentially it just appends a route for the delegations (whether it's IA_NA or IA_PD) to the local routing table and to again remove them upon expiry. This is probably too much detail for here.

For client side it's always been possible to use for example dhcpcd -6 on the ppp interface to obtain addressing information. Possibly in combination with something like radvd to forward advertise.

How about:

There is now a dhcpv6relay plugin, which can be used to provide IPv6 RAs to the remote side and relay the subsequent incoming DHCPv6 requests to a DHCPv6 server. Note: This is to delegate IPv6 to the remote side, not to configure IPv6 locally - for that you can look at projects like dhcpcd and/or radvd as needed.

Comment thread configure.ac
"

AM_COND_IF([PPP_WITH_CBCP],
AC_MSG_WARN([CBCP support is likely to be removed in future]))
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd make this more aggressive and point to the specific issue

[CPCP is going to be removed in version (one of) 2.5.X (or) 2.6.0 unless motivation to keep it is given to the issue at https://....]

@jkroonza
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@paulusmack I note I never actually submitted my comments ... it's been stuck in the half-review. So I missed it, not sure if they're al that significant, I suspect for >99% of folks it's "good enough" as it stands.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants