On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Roland Bless wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 11.05.2011 05:32, Dave Taht wrote: > > 1) in a wireshark analysis, the %interface part is lost > > But your wireshark is listening on some specific interface, > isn't it? No. It is listening on the wildcard interface. Of which there are 8. > This interface is your context then and link locals are > unique on that particular link (which is assured by > Duplicate Address Detection). I wouldn't be so sure in the case of link-local addresses and vlans and bridges. At least: I'm no longer sure... After digging into the code in openwrt (very) late last night I spotted this in base-files/files/lib/network/config.sh config_get macaddr "$config" macaddr [ -x /usr/sbin/brctl ] && { ifconfig "br-$config" 2>/dev/null >/dev/null && { local newdevs devices config_get devices "$config" device for dev in $(sort_list "$devices" "$iface"); do append newdevs "$dev" done uci_set_state network "$config" device "$newdevs" $DEBUG ifconfig "$iface" 0.0.0.0 $DEBUG do_sysctl "net.ipv6.conf.$iface.disable_ipv6" 1 $DEBUG brctl addif "br-$config" "$iface" # Bridge existed already. No further processing necesary } || { local stp config_get_bool stp "$config" stp 0 $DEBUG brctl addbr "br-$config" $DEBUG brctl setfd "br-$config" 0 $DEBUG ifconfig "$iface" 0.0.0.0 $DEBUG do_sysctl "net.ipv6.conf.$iface.disable_ipv6" 1 $DEBUG brctl addif "br-$config" "$iface" $DEBUG brctl stp "br-$config" $stp $DEBUG ifconfig "br-$config" up it looks like I can "prepend" rather than "append" in order to get the wlan* interface first in the bridge (rather than eth*), or defer bridge creation until the other interfaces are brought up.... Each wlan has a unique MAC id, and thus I hope will create a unique bridge id EUI-64. And as for why it disables ipv6 on the underlying interface... > Are you facing the problem from the > switch's perspective (e.g., that you can determine the receiving > i/f from the destination address of received packets) or from another > another device's perspective? > > routers' perspective. > > 2) we have 2^64 possible choices for fe80 addresses. I don't see what > > having them all be the same buys me. > > You can assign an individual fe80:: address to an interface, e.g., > fe80::b101 for bridge one interface 1, fe80::b102 bridge one > interface 2 etc. if that helps. But be aware that it may create > address collisions in case you have two such bridges on the same > link :-( Therefore, using (modified) EUI-64 addresses within the > 64-bit seems to be a good choice. > > I think using ::b101 is a bad idea. EUI-64 is the way to go. I wanted to use up the extra 52 bits though in some sane manner.... > > 3) It worries me in the babel routing protocol > > Sorry, I didn't study the spec so far. What is the > particular problem there? Maybe there is a problem > with the assumptions in the protocol. > > It's a new RFC. Could be. It's a neat protocol tho. > > 4) My bridges are misbehaving over ipv6 in the general case and I'm > > willing to grasp at straws. > > What is that misbehavior? That a bridge is using the same link local > address on each of its links? That's ok as long as its unique on that > particular on-link subnet. > > They be misbehaving - multicast weirdnesses. > Regards, > Roland > -- Dave Täht SKYPE: davetaht US Tel: 1-239-829-5608 http://the-edge.blogspot.com