Re: [PATCH] ipv6: default route for link local address is not addedwhile assigning a address

[Nicolas Dichtel]

Le 03/02/2014 17:08, Hannes Frederic Sowa a Ãcrit :
> Hello!
>
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 04:23:00PM +0100, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> > Le 03/02/2014 08:19, Sohny Thomas a Ãcrit :
> > > > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/