Hi, On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 02:06:00AM +0200, Antonio Quartulli wrote: > o->ifconfig_ipv6_pool_defined = true; > - o->ifconfig_ipv6_pool_base = > - add_in6_addr( o->server_network_ipv6, 0x1000 ); > + o->ifconfig_ipv6_pool_base = add_in6_addr(o->server_network_ipv6, 2); > o->ifconfig_ipv6_pool_netbits = o->server_netbits_ipv6;
Thinking more about this, I'm not totally happy with this particular change. Yes, it makes sense for smallish pools (/112 to /124) because there we do not have room for "wasting addresses". OTOH, changing this for an existing /64 pool - or anything "large enough that 0x1000 addresses will not matter" - would change behaviour in existing setups - that's one of the feedbacks I already received via Twitter on the patchset https://twitter.com/tschaeferm/status/1266822120497188876 One of the notable things that it would break is our buildbot t_client test environment - all clients would receive new v6 addresses, and since one of the tests is "have I received what I expect?" this would cause a buildbot explosion. My idea would be to make this conditional on the pool size - if the size is /64.../111, make it +0x1000 ("keep existing behaviour for large-enough pools"), if it's /112.../124, make it +2 Thoughts? gert PS: the rest of the patch is fine -- "If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never doubted it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor." Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Openvpn-devel mailing list Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
