Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:26:12 +0100 | From | Nicolas Dichtel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ipv6: default route for link local address is not added while assigning a address |
| |
Le 03/02/2014 17:08, Hannes Frederic Sowa a écrit : > Hello! > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:23:00PM +0100, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: >> Le 03/02/2014 08:19, Sohny Thomas a écrit : >>> >>>> Actually I am not so sure, there is no defined semantic of flush. I would >>>> be ok with all three solutions: leave it as is, always add link-local >>>> address (it does not matter if we don't have a link-local address on >> It matters. This address is required. >> RFC 4291 >> Section 2.1: >> All interfaces are required to have at least one Link-Local unicast >> address (see Section 2.8 for additional required addresses). >> Section 2.8: >> o Its required Link-Local address for each interface. > > Yes, sure, it is required. But you also can manually delete the LL address and > we don't guard against that. Sure. It's why I don't like this patch, it fix a user error.
> >>>> that interface, as a global scoped one is just fine enough) or make flush >>>> not >>>> remove the link-local address (but this seems a bit too special cased for >>>> me). >>> >>> 1) In case if we leave it as it is, there is rfc 6724 rule 2 to be >>> considered ( >>> previously rfc 3484) >>> >>> Rule 2: Prefer appropriate scope. >>> If Scope(SA) < Scope(SB): If Scope(SA) < Scope(D), then prefer SB and >>> otherwise prefer SA. Similarly, if Scope(SB) < Scope(SA): If >>> Scope(SB) < Scope(D), then prefer SA and otherwise prefer SB. >>> >>> Test: >>> >>> Destination: fe80::2(LS) >>> Candidate Source Addresses: 3ffe::1(GS) or fec0::1(SS) or LLA(LS) >>> Result: LLA(LS) >>> Scope(LLA) < Scope(fec0::1): If Scope(LLA) < Scope(fe80::2), no, >>> prefer LLA >>> Scope(LLA) < Scope(3ffe::1): If Scope(LLA) < Scope(fe80::2), no, >>> prefer LLA >>> >>> >>> Now the above test fails since the route itself is not present, and the >>> test >>> assumes that the route gets added since the LLA is not removed during the >>> test >> In your scenario, the link local route has been removed manually, not by the >> kernel. What is your network manager? > > The test scenario is outlined here: > <https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=68511> > > Basically, the command in question is this one: > > [root@localhost ~]# ip -6 -statistics -statistics route flush dev eth0 > > which removes the fe80::/64 route. > >>> 2) having a LLA always helps in NDP i think >> A link-local Address yes, it's a MUST. But having only the link local route >> will >> not help. > > Agreed, the LL address should be available, too. I currently don't know > what will break if LL address is not available. I guess MLD won't work > properly and thus even basic connectivity won't work with some switches. > >>> 3) making flush not remove link-local address will be chnaging >>> functionality of >>> ip flush command >> You can flush by specifying the prototype: >> ip -6 route flush proto static > > So we have four possiblities now: > > 1) leave it as is > > seems still acceptable to me > > 2) add fe80::/64 route unconditionally if any address gets added > > Sohny's patch already looks good in doing so at first look. I don't like this solution, because it's a kernel patch to fix a configuration problem.
> > 3) add fe80::/64 route in case LL address gets added via inet6_rtm_newaddr > > would be ok, too. I tend towards this solution somehow by now. This seems right also, but I'm not sure that this will fix Sohny's pb.
> > 4) make flush not remove the fe80::/64 address > > Least favourable to me. I guess this also woud need iproute change > and seems most difficult to do. Why using this command 'ip -6 route flush proto static' isn't possible? I think that we know what kind of route is added for these TAHI tests, hence it's better to remove only routes added manually (or by a routing daemon if it's the case). Removing kernel routes may hide bugs: imagine the kernel adds a wrong route, TAHI will not detect it.
Regards, Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |