Long ago, Nostradamus foresaw that on 08/15/2012 05:09 AM, Tore Anderson
would write:
*** A very good summary of IP6 RA and DHCP interaction. ***
This should go in a FAQ somewhere. I'm going to copy it, if you don't mind.
___
networkmanager-list
* Stuart Gathman
> Forgive my ignorance, but when you have an address on a /80 LAN subnet,
> isn't it more efficient to send packets for that subnet directly, rather
> than bouncing them off a router?
Assuming the network type is broadcast/multicast capable, yes. In that
case, you'll want to adve
Long ago, Nostradamus foresaw that on 08/09/2012 08:48 AM, Pavel Simerda
would write:
> DHCPv6 should not care about *any* routes.
>> and prefixes should only be used in routers.
> I don't understand this.
>
The problem that was confusing me is that NM was setting a (hardwired by
dhclient) prefix
> From: "Stuart D Gathman"
> One situation that ought to work IMHO (although ~1/2 of IPv6 experts
> disagree) is that DHCP6 should work in concert with routes that are
> not /64.
DHCPv6 should not care about *any* routes.
> For instance, RA provides a 2001:db8:1:2:3::1/80 default route,
Default
* Stuart D Gathman
> Ah yes. When the RA router IPs are link local, you don't care about
> a prefix (link local IPs are a cool feature of IP6). But *sometimes*,
> the router IP is global,
A route learned from an RA will *always* have a link-local next-hop.
RAs sent from other than link-local ad
On 08/08/2012 03:00 AM, Tore Anderson expounded in part:
This could
get non-trivial when there are multiple routes provided by RA. NM
must then find the route that matches the DHCP6 address to determine
the correct prefix.
An address assigned by DHCPv6 IA_NA is just that, a single address.
DH
* Stuart D Gathman
> One situation that ought to work IMHO (although ~1/2 of IPv6 experts
> disagree) is that DHCP6 should work in concert with routes that are
> not /64.
Agreed. As it happens, NM recently gained support for such setups.
> For instance, RA provides a 2001:db8:1:2:3::1/80 default
On 08/07/2012 05:00 PM, Stuart D Gathman wrote:
> One situation that ought to work IMHO (although ~1/2 of IPv6 experts
> disagree) is that DHCP6 should work in concert with routes that are not
> /64. For instance, RA provides a 2001:db8:1:2:3::1/80 default route
Note that:
If the sum of the p
On 08/03/2012 05:33 PM, Dan Williams expounded in part:
That's correct, but at the time that bug was filed I did not know enough
about IPv6 configuration to suggest the correct course of action. I now
know much more and realize that adding it back was a mistake. We should
really deprecate that
On 08/03/2012 05:33 PM, Dan Williams expounded in part:
That's correct, but at the time that bug was filed I did not know enough
about IPv6 configuration to suggest the correct course of action. I now
know much more and realize that adding it back was a mistake. We should
really deprecate that
On Fri, 2012-08-03 at 11:59 +0200, Jiri Popelka wrote:
> On 08/02/2012 09:50 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > * Stuart Gathman
> >
> >> The problem is, I don't want the auto IP, *or* the private IPs. I
> >> just want the DHCP6 IP. But when I select "DHCP only" in NM, it
> >> then assigns only the DHC
- Original Message -
> From: "Jiri Popelka"
> To: networkmanager-list@gnome.org
> Sent: Friday, August 3, 2012 11:59:45 AM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 default routes / NM vs. kernel autoconfig
>
> On 08/02/2012 09:50 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > * Stuart
On 08/02/2012 09:50 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Stuart Gathman
The problem is, I don't want the auto IP, *or* the private IPs. I
just want the DHCP6 IP. But when I select "DHCP only" in NM, it
then assigns only the DHCP IP, but no route! The behaviour I expect
with DHCP only is to still assi
> Again IMHO, it would be preferable if NM avoided adding such a static
> default route if it isn't necessary (for example if there's an
> ambiguity of which interface should be used or if a VPN plugin wants to
> redirect the default route).
It is generally necessary unless there is just one kerne
> From: "Stuart Gathman"
> The problem is, I don't want the auto IP, *or* the private IPs.
I'm sorry but you would have to express this idea better. DHCPv6
is one of the methods to serve automatic addresses and DNS information.
> I just
> want the DHCP6 IP. But when I select "DHCP only" in NM,
* Stuart Gathman
> The problem is, I don't want the auto IP, *or* the private IPs. I
> just want the DHCP6 IP. But when I select "DHCP only" in NM, it
> then assigns only the DHCP IP, but no route! The behaviour I expect
> with DHCP only is to still assign the route from RA.
The «DHCP Only»
Long ago, Nostradamus foresaw that on 07/31/2012 07:26 AM, Tore Anderson
would write:
> * Stuart D Gathman
>
>> While it doesn't actually break, I have a related issue with DHCP6. When
>> RA enables DHCP6 (and NM set to "Automatic"), I end up with *both* the
>> RA and DHCP addresses. And it keeps
Long ago, Nostradamus foresaw that on 07/31/2012 07:26 AM, Tore Anderson
would write:
> * Stuart D Gathman
>
>> While it doesn't actually break, I have a related issue with DHCP6. When
>> RA enables DHCP6 (and NM set to "Automatic"), I end up with *both* the
>> RA and DHCP addresses. And it keeps
> just that the IPv6
> autoconf protocol (which is what he means by "protocol") is broken by
> definition (and therefore for "everyone") when it is overridden by
> static routes.
NetworkManager only sets up static route
> You could argue that IPv6 autoconf is itself broken
I don't, except RDNSS
> From: "Phil Mayers"
> > The best way is to track various enhancements requests and RFC
> > conflicts in bugzilla
> > but it would need a thorough review of the code and a thorough
> > testing with RFC at
> > hand...
> >
> > Right now it's probably just:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bu
On 31/07/12 13:49, Pavel Simerda wrote:
Are the various conflicts/problems listed somewhere?
The best way is to track various enhancements requests and RFC conflicts in
bugzilla
but it would need a thorough review of the code and a thorough testing with RFC
at
hand...
Right now it's probably
> Are the various conflicts/problems listed somewhere?
The best way is to track various enhancements requests and RFC conflicts in
bugzilla
but it would need a thorough review of the code and a thorough testing with RFC
at
hand...
Right now it's probably just:
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_b
* Stuart D Gathman
> While it doesn't actually break, I have a related issue with DHCP6. When
> RA enables DHCP6 (and NM set to "Automatic"), I end up with *both* the
> RA and DHCP addresses. And it keeps accumulating more IPs over time!
> Here is what I have after 6 days uptime (prefix changed
On 31/07/12 12:19, Pavel Simerda wrote:
Default gateway selection is
another.
Do you intend multiple, simultaneous equal-cost gateways to be a
use-case here? Because that's a valid, often desirable use-case.
I'm answering for myself. Currently not. We have other priorities
but it may be reco
> >
> > Default gateway selection is
> > another.
>
> Do you intend multiple, simultaneous equal-cost gateways to be a
> use-case here? Because that's a valid, often desirable use-case.
I'm answering for myself. Currently not. We have other priorities
but it may be reconsidered in the future.
>
On 31/07/12 12:12, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 31/07/12 12:06, Pavel Simerda wrote:
Default gateway selection is
another.
Do you intend multiple, simultaneous equal-cost gateways to be a
use-case here? Because that's a valid, often desirable use-case.
The whole area is complex, and interacts with
> > NM is working around lack of information from kernel and it works
> > only
> > in basic situations. There are solutions to this.
> While it doesn't actually break, I have a related issue with DHCP6.
> When
> RA enables DHCP6 (and NM set to "Automatic"), I end up with *both*
> the
> RA and DHCP
On 31/07/12 12:06, Pavel Simerda wrote:
Default gateway selection is
another.
Do you intend multiple, simultaneous equal-cost gateways to be a
use-case here? Because that's a valid, often desirable use-case.
The whole area is complex, and interacts with RFC3484(bis) destination
address sel
> > Though a router did a somewhat surprising thing (coming up with a
> > different link-local address), the network here is working
> > perfectly
> > well.
> NM *should* remove any routes it added if the most recent RA for that
> router has a lifetime of 0. That's a bug in NM, and something we
>
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 09:38 -0400, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 20:12 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > > ::/0 fe80::21b:2bff:fec1:dcc1 UG 1 0 0 em1
> > > ::/0 fe80::217:e0ff:fe43:5941 UGDAe 1024 0 0 em1
> > > ::/0 fe80::21b:2bf
On 07/23/2012 08:12 PM, Pavel Simerda expounded in part:
NM is working around lack of information from kernel and it works only
in basic situations. There are solutions to this.
While it doesn't actually break, I have a related issue with DHCP6. When
RA enables DHCP6 (and NM set to "Automatic"),
> On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 10:21 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > > From: "Ross Vandegrift"
> > > Why does NM do this? Iv6 autoconf is a dynamic routing protocol
> > > that
> > > chooses the best available default on the network.
> >
> > I guess it's because NetworkManager devels (and users) general
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 10:21 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > From: "Ross Vandegrift"
> > Why does NM do this? Iv6 autoconf is a dynamic routing protocol that
> > chooses the best available default on the network.
>
> I guess it's because NetworkManager devels (and users) generally don't agree
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Ross Vandegrift"
> To: "Pavel Simerda"
> Cc: "Phil Mayers" , networkmanager-list@gnome.org
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 3:38:04 PM
> Subject: Re: IPv6 default routes / NM vs. kernel autoconfig
>
> On
On 24/07/12 14:38, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
The lower-metric route should be from NetworkManager and it should reflect
the default route for the device that is used for connectivity. In your
case it seems to be nonsense.
Why does NM do this? Iv6 autoconf is a dynamic routing protocol that
I m
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 20:12 -0400, Pavel Simerda wrote:
> > ::/0 fe80::21b:2bff:fec1:dcc1 UG 1 0 0 em1
> > ::/0 fe80::217:e0ff:fe43:5941 UGDAe 1024 0 0 em1
> > ::/0 fe80::21b:2bff:fec1:dcc2 UGDAe 1024 0 0 em1
> >
> > Note that the lower-
> All,
>
> I work in the network team at an (almost) fully IPv6 enabled site. We
> use a lot of Linux servers and desktops as part of the Network
> infrastructure.
>
> We recently rebooted one of our IPv6 routers, serving a subnet with
> two
> IPv6 gateways. After the reboot, a Fedora 17 machine
All,
I work in the network team at an (almost) fully IPv6 enabled site. We
use a lot of Linux servers and desktops as part of the Network
infrastructure.
We recently rebooted one of our IPv6 routers, serving a subnet with two
IPv6 gateways. After the reboot, a Fedora 17 machine running the m
38 matches
Mail list logo
