From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from chi.subsignal.org (cxd-2-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:ed::2]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0798E21F113 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 08:34:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.29.8.221] (tmo-106-118.customers.d1-online.com [80.187.106.118]) by chi.subsignal.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 294A51260EE; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:36:10 +0100 (CET) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <52C6FE3C.6020207@openwrt.org> <52C7D4CA.9030108@openwrt.org> <828011e1-b43f-4b38-ae9c-25b98fbd1dc5@email.android.com> <6eb654d2-de95-4429-8500-862d69d41400@email.android.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----WZPM4Z0IOLYH42AEGD9I2A1OK07VFK" From: Steven Barth Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:34:20 +0100 To: Dave Taht Message-ID: <1e00dfc5-2ace-4223-81a8-070e4e339455@email.android.com> Cc: "cb.list6" , Matt Mathis , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:34:39 -0000 ------WZPM4Z0IOLYH42AEGD9I2A1OK07VFK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit C30 to c32 should run through main table only which has no restrictions. In the new version from today we dont use policy rules that much any more and use source-routes instead. These can get picked up by babels as well and dont cause that much confusion ala "where is my default route". Dave Taht schrieb: >On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Steven Barth >wrote: >> That firewall reloading is due to comcast unnecessarily spamming ras >every 3 >> seconds. We already filter it down to one reload per minute. I >prepared >> another filter yesterday which will filter out updates that dont >change >> anything but adress / route timers. So expect some solution for this >reload >> spam in the coming days. > >Wow, policy routing has really sprouted wings. No visible default >route... > > >root@cerowrt:~# ip -6 route >2601:mynet:c30::/64 dev gw00 proto kernel metric 256 expires >300345sec >2601:mynet:c31::/64 dev gw10 proto kernel metric 256 expires >300345sec >2601:mynet:c32::/64 dev se00 proto kernel metric 256 >2601:mynet:c33::/64 dev sw00 proto kernel metric 256 expires >300345sec >2601:mynet:c34::/64 dev sw10 proto kernel metric 256 expires >300345sec >unreachable 2601:9:8580:c30::/60 dev lo proto static metric >2147483647 error -128 >(the above is trick to reject stuff going to subnets you have but have >not delegated) > >and the actual routing is all done via the rule table. > >Can this already co-exist with 6in4 or 6rd running at the same time? > >root@cerowrt:~# ip -6 rule >0: from all lookup local >32766: from all lookup main >80000: from 2001:558:mywanaddr lookup 1004 >90000: from 2001:558:mywanaddr lookup 1004 >90000: from 2601:mynet:c32::1/64 iif se00 lookup 1004 >90000: from 2601:mynet:c33::1/64 iif sw00 lookup 1004 >90000: from 2601:mynet:c30::1/64 iif gw00 lookup 1004 > >but I'm confused, how do I get from mynet:c30 to mynet:c32 > >90000: from 2601:mynet:c34::1/64 iif sw10 lookup 1004 >90000: from 2601:mynet:c31::1/64 iif gw10 lookup 1004 >90001: from all iif lo lookup 1001 >90002: from all iif lo lookup 1002 >90003: from all iif lo lookup 1003 >90003: from all iif lo lookup 1004 >90013: from all iif lo lookup 1010 >90014: from all iif lo lookup 1009 >90015: from all iif lo lookup 1006 >90016: from all iif lo lookup 1005 >90017: from all iif lo lookup 1007 >90018: from all iif lo lookup 1008 >4200000000: from 2601:mynet:c32::1/64 iif se00 unreachable >4200000000: from 2601:mynet:c33::1/64 iif sw00 unreachable >4200000000: from 2601:mynet:c30::1/64 iif gw00 unreachable >4200000000: from 2601:mynet:c34::1/64 iif sw10 unreachable >4200000000: from 2601:mynet:c31::1/64 iif gw10 unreachable >4200000001: from all iif lo failed_policy >4200000002: from all iif se00 failed_policy >4200000003: from all iif ge00 failed_policy >4200000003: from all iif ge00 failed_policy >4200000013: from all iif gw11 failed_policy >4200000014: from all iif gw01 failed_policy >4200000015: from all iif sw10 failed_policy >4200000016: from all iif sw00 failed_policy >4200000017: from all iif gw00 failed_policy >4200000018: from all iif gw10 failed_policy >root@cerowrt:~# ip -6 route show table 1004 >default via fe80::201:5cff:fe62:4e46 dev ge00 proto static metric >1024 > >> >> >> Dave Taht schrieb: >>> >>> I just filed bug http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/438 on this issue >>> after working with matt until the wee hours. >>> >>> I have to take a couple packet captures next. >>> >>> To copy from the bug report: >>> >>> On the plus side: >>> >>> comcast ipv6 had been working fine between august and december on >>> cerowrt 3.10.7 (?) >>> >>> we do get an external IPv6 address AND /60 dhcpv6-pd delegation from >>> comcast, and distribute the /64s to each of the subnets on cero. The >>> resulting native ipv6 connection works for getting into the router >>> itself and stays up all night... >>> >>> On the minus side(s) >>> >>> 1) The AAAA record on the wan interface (ge00) is withdrawn and >>> renewed every minute or two. This triggers reloading the firewall, >>> which really isn't something you want happening every minute or two. >>> The delegation seems to persist longer than that, >>> but... >>> >>> 2) We do not get dnsmasq distributing that /64 on any interface. >>> Interestingly if you manually add a new IPv6 address from that range >>> (say, whatever::2/64) dnsmasq picks it up and starts serving ipv6 >>> addresses. (theory: we don't have that ipv6 delegation long enough >for >>> dnsmasq to see it before they are withdrawn) >>> >>> 3) We get plenty of instruction traps IF you delegate to the >wireless >>> and use it. >>> (there may be other factors on the instruction traps so don't take >the >>> above as canon), but Running all night with just the ::2 manually >>> inserted on ethernet results in no instruction traps (but there was >no >>> traffic either). running with with the manual ::2/64 inserted does >>> result in routable, working, ipv6 subnet addresses that dnsmasq sees >>> and distributes from. >>> >>> 4) tweak: ge01 needs to be added to the firewall rules for wan. >maybe. >>> >>> The net result is unusable native ipv6 on comcast >>> . (comcast6.net is >>> also reporting unusable ipv6 on wireless on the xbox 1, and I don't >>> know if that's related) >>> >>> Working theories: A) is we have an endianess problem on parsing >>> dhcpv6-pd from comcast for the timeout, B) comcast has an endianess >>> problem C) we are not keeping properly track of the ipv6 address >>> assignment and/or lease length. D) Comcast isn't assigning ipv6 >>> external addresses and subnets for more than a minute. E) we have >some >>> problem on the wireless side in particular (but that seems >independent >>> of the problem) >>> >>> We have all generally been running fine with ipv6 tunneled through >>> hurricane, so >>> my assumption is that this is something specific to the directly >connected >>> ge00 >>> interface, in negotiating something with the upstream dhcpv6 and >>> dhcpv6-pd stuff. >>> >>> So here's one of the symptoms. I have some packet captures and >straces to >>> do: >>> >>> Sat Jan 18 1 >>> 3:18:55 >>> 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due >>> to ifupdate of ge01 () >>> Sat Jan 18 13:19:57 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall >due >>> to ifupdate of ge01 () >>> Sat Jan 18 13:21:01 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall >due >>> to ifupdate of ge01 () >>> Sat Jan 18 13:22:02 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall >due >>> to ifupdate of ge01 () >>> Sat Jan 18 13:23:02 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall >due >>> to ifupdate of ge01 () >>> Sat Jan 18 13:24:04 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall >due >>> to ifupdate of ge01 () >>> Sat Jan 18 13:25:04 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall >due >>> to ifupdate of ge01 () >>> Sat Jan 18 13:25:45 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq-dhcp3318: >>> RTR-ADVERT 2601:9:8580:c32:: >>> Sat Jan 18 13:26:07 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall >due >>> to ifupdate of ge01 () >>> Sat Jan 18 13:27:09 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading fi >>> rewall >>> due >>> to ifupdate of ge01 () >>> Sat Jan 18 13:28:11 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall >due >>> to ifupdate of ge01 () >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Steven Barth >wrote: >>>> >>>> Fyi as stated earlier i made the switch to odhcpd yesterday. With >that i >>>> also switched routing from individual tables to source-constrained >routes >>>> in >>>> the maintable. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Steven >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dave Taht schrieb: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Matt Mathis > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I'm final >>>>>> ly >>>>>> getting back to this. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hmm. if you uncomment everything in /etc/dnsmasq.conf and >restart >>>>>>> dnsmasq what happens? If you have got /64s you would end up >doing >>>>>>> slaac and ra announcements via dnsmasq in this case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That was on by default before (and what was tested in feburary). >Later >>>>>>> on 6relayd started having a race with it and seemed to be "the >>>>>>> future", so I disabled the dnsmasq version, thinking that >6relayd was >>>>>>> the answer. It's entirely possible that's >>>>>>> merely configured wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Now I get global /64's on my LAN interfaces, but I am still not >>>>>> answering >>>>>> dh >>>>>> cp6 for >>>>>> attached hosts. I retried both version of the 6relayd init >>>>>> script.... >>>>>> >>>>>> dnsmasq.conf contains: >>>>>> enable-ra >>>>>> dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:se00,ra-names,ra-stateless >>>>>> dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:sw00,ra-names,ra-stateless >>>>>> dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:gw00,ra-names,ra-stateless >>>>>> dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:sw10,ra-names,ra-stateless >>>>>> dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:gw10,ra-names,ra-stateless >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am running: Linux cerowrt 3.10.24 #1 Tue Dec 24 10:50:15 PST >>>>>> 2013..... >>>>>> which might be just a bit too fresh.... Would you suggest >another? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are not getting slaac either? >>>>> >>>>> An ifconfig on an interface and a packet dump of ipv6 packets >would be >>>>> helpful. >>>>> >>>>>> I have a spare 3700, so I think I will try some alternate >vintages. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> --MM-- >>>>>> The >>>>>> best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Privacy matters! We know from recent events that people are >using our >>>>>> services to speak in >>>>>> defiance of unjust governments. We treat privacy >>>>>> and >>>>>> security as matters of life and death, because for some users, >they >>>>>> are. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Dave Taht >wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 03.01.2014 19:43, Dave Taht wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I was also experiencing a race condition with dnsmasq, while I >had >>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>> enabling >>>>>>>>> ra >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> dhcpv6 via dnsmasq. At the moment that's turned off by >default, >>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>> I did rather prefer having dns names for my ipv6 >>>>>>>>> addresses... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well 6relayd and odhcpd collect hostnames of clients acquired >via >>>>>>>> stateful >>>>>>>> DHCPv6 and export them to dnsmasq in an additional hostfiles. >At >>>>>>>> least >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> seemed to work when I last tried it a few months ago. The only >>>>>>>> disadvantage >>>>>>>> is that there is no "ra-names" feature there. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Getting to names from dhcpv4 to slaac was a neat hack and a >potential >>>>>>> RFC. So i figure spending the time to add the same functionality >into >>>>>>> into something other than dnsmasq would be useful towards >writing that >>>>>>> rfc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> is there a good way for 6re >>>>>>>>> layd >>>>>>>>> and dnsmasq-dhcpv6 to co-exist? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ideally they could coexist in a way that you c >>>>>>>> ould >>>>>>>> select dnsmasq and / >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> odhcpd for different interfaces on the same machine. odhcpd >supports >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> but dnsmasq the last time I've looked seemed to use a single >socket >>>>>>>> binding >>>>>>>> to all interfaces for DHCP/v6 which prevents coexistance from >working >>>>>>>> correctly because odhcpd / 6relayd can't bind the socket after >>>>>>>> dnsmasq >>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>> and vice versa. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Feel free to provide me with some debugging information of >the >>>>>>>>>> system >>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>> PD fails for you so I can have a look at the probable cause: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * "ifstatus ge00" (replace ge00 with your IPv6 upstream >interface) >>>>>>>>>> * "ip addr list dev >>>>>>>>>> ge01" >>>>>>>>>> (replace ge01 with the interface your >>>>>>>>>> downstream >>>>>>>>>> router is connected) >>>>>>>>>> * "ps >>>>>>>>>> | grep >>>>>>>>>> 6relayd" >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyway I will migrate all the stuff to odhcpd soon (it's >successor >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> shares a good part of the codebase but is a bit better >integrated >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> rest of the environment). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> same question re dnsmasq. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yeah as pointed out coexistence is a matter of binding sockets. >>>>>>>> odhcpd >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> bring the functionality of dynamically enabling / disabling >DHCPv4/v6 >>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>> interfaces without restarting the daemon and loosing state. >This is >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> the main reasons for the change and very much eases things for >>>>>>>> high-level >>>>>>>> protocols that do dynamic wan/lan detection. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steven >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regard >>>>>>>>>> s, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Steven >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 03.01.2014 18:31, Dave Taht wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:50 AM, cb.list6 > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> At one level I am happy to figure out this is a recently >>>>>>>>>>>>> introduced >>>>>>>>>>>>> bug. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand I am not sure if it is 6relayd. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What version of cero was working for you? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am not entirely sure, but i think it was from September. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> CB >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> At the moment I lack the ability to d >>>>>>>>>>> ebug >>>>>>>>>>> the breakage in ipv6 >>>>>>>>>>> dhcp-pd >>>>>>>>>>> (which is odhcpd) (I am travelling). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I will on my next stop next week (tuesday) setup a dhcpv6pd >server >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> see what I can see. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 3, 2014 12:21 AM, "cb.list6" >wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have been using CeroWRT on Comcast with a 3800 for >about 6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> month. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DHCP-PD config has always been a little unstable for me, >but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> working. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I recently upgraded to: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> root@cerowrt:/etc/config# uname -a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux cerowrt 3.10.24 #1 Tue Dec 24 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0:50:15 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PST 2013 mips >>>>>>>>>>>>>> GNU/Linux >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> My WAN >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> /128, but i cannot get DHCP-PD to work to get >>>>>>>>>>>>>> addresses >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rest of my interfaces. The router does seem to have >good >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPv6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> access. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I fiddled with the 6relayd config and came up with this, >but it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work. Any pointers on how to get this back on track? >The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> result >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> below config is that the /128 from the WAN interfaces is >now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the interfaces but my attached computers get no >addresses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> config server 'default' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> option rd 'server' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> option dhcpv6 'server' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> option management_level '1' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list network 'ge01' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list network 'gw00' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list network 'gw01' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list network 'gw10' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list network 'gw11' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list network 'se00' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list network 'sw00' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> list network 'sw10' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> option fallback_relay 'rd dhcpv6 ndp' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> option master 'ge00' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> root@cerowrt:/etc/config# un >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ame >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dave Täht >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: >>>>>>> http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dave Täht >>>>> >>>>> Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: >>>>> http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Dave Täht >>> >>> Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: >>> http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html > > > >-- >Dave Täht > >Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: >http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html ------WZPM4Z0IOLYH42AEGD9I2A1OK07VFK Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit C30 to c32 should run through main table only which has no restrictions. In the new version from today we dont use policy rules that much any more and use source-routes instead. These can get picked up by babels as well and dont cause that much confusion ala "where is my default route".



Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> schrieb:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org> wrote:
That firewall reloading is due to comcast unnecessarily spamming ras every 3
seconds. We already filter it down to one reload per minute. I prepared
another filter yesterday which will filter out updates that dont change
anything but adress / route timers. So expect some solution for this reload
spam in the coming days.

Wow, policy routing has really sprouted wings. No visible default route...


root@cerowrt:~# ip -6 route
2601:mynet:c30::/64 dev gw00  proto kernel  metric 256  expires 300345sec
2601:mynet:c31::/64 dev gw10  proto kernel  metric 256  expires 300345sec
2601:mynet:c32::/64 dev se00  proto kernel  metric 256
2601:mynet:c33::/64 dev sw00  proto kernel  metric 256  expires
300345sec
2601:mynet:c34::/64 dev sw10  proto kernel  metric 256  expires 300345sec
unreachable 2601:9:8580:c30::/60 dev lo  proto static  metric
2147483647  error -128
(the above is trick to reject stuff going to subnets you have but have
not delegated)

and the actual routing is all done via the rule table.

Can this already co-exist with 6in4 or 6rd running at the same time?

root@cerowrt:~# ip -6 rule
0:    from all lookup local
32766:    from all lookup main
80000:    from 2001:558:mywanaddr lookup 1004
90000:    from 2001:558:mywanaddr lookup 1004
90000:    from 2601:mynet:c32::1/64 iif se00 lookup 1004
90000:    from 2601:mynet:c33::1/64 iif sw00 lookup 1004
90000:    from 2601:mynet:c30::1/64 iif gw00 lookup 1004

but I'm confused, how do I get from mynet:c30 to mynet:c32

90000:    from 2601:mynet:c34::1/64 iif sw10 lookup 1004
90000:    from
2601:mynet:c31::1/64 iif gw10 lookup 1004
90001:    from all iif lo lookup 1001
90002:    from all iif lo lookup 1002
90003:    from all iif lo lookup 1003
90003:    from all iif lo lookup 1004
90013:    from all iif lo lookup 1010
90014:    from all iif lo lookup 1009
90015:    from all iif lo lookup 1006
90016:    from all iif lo lookup 1005
90017:    from all iif lo lookup 1007
90018:    from all iif lo lookup 1008
4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c32::1/64 iif se00 unreachable
4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c33::1/64 iif sw00 unreachable
4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c30::1/64 iif gw00 unreachable
4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c34::1/64 iif sw10 unreachable
4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c31::1/64 iif gw10 unreachable
4200000001:    from all iif lo failed_policy
4200000002:    from all iif se00 failed_policy
4200000003:    from all iif ge00 failed_policy
4200000003:    from all 
 iif
ge00 failed_policy
4200000013:    from all iif gw11 failed_policy
4200000014:    from all iif gw01 failed_policy
4200000015:    from all iif sw10 failed_policy
4200000016:    from all iif sw00 failed_policy
4200000017:    from all iif gw00 failed_policy
4200000018:    from all iif gw10 failed_policy
root@cerowrt:~# ip -6 route show table 1004
default via fe80::201:5cff:fe62:4e46 dev ge00  proto static  metric 1024



Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> schrieb:

I just filed bug http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/438 on this issue
after working with matt until the wee hours.

I have to take a couple packet ca
 ptures
next.

To copy from the bug report:

On the plus side:

comcast ipv6 had been working fine between august and december on
cerowrt 3.10.7 (?)

we do get an external IPv6 address AND /60 dhcpv6-pd delegation from
comcast, and distribute the /64s to each of the subnets on cero. The
resulting native ipv6 connection works for getting into the router
itself and stays up all night...

On the minus side(s)

1) The AAAA record on the wan interface (ge00) is withdrawn and
renewed every minute or two. This triggers reloading the firewall,
which really isn't something you want happening every minute or two.
The delegation seems to persist longer than that,
but...

2) We do not get dnsmasq distributing that /64 on any interface.
Interestingly if you manually add a new IPv6 address from that range
(say, whatever::2/64) dnsmasq picks it up and starts serving ipv6
addr
 esses.
(theory: we don't have that ipv6 delegation long enough for
dnsmasq to see it before they are withdrawn)

3) We get plenty of instruction traps IF you delegate to the wireless
and use it.
(there may be other factors on the instruction traps so don't take the
above as canon), but Running all night with just the ::2 manually
inserted on ethernet results in no instruction traps (but there was no
traffic either). running with with the manual ::2/64 inserted does
result in routable, working, ipv6 subnet addresses that dnsmasq sees
and distributes from.

4) tweak: ge01 needs to be added to the firewall rules for wan. maybe.

The net result is unusable native ipv6 on comcast
. (comcast6.net is
also reporting unusable ipv6 on wireless on the xbox 1, and I don't
know if that's related)

Working theories: A) is we have an endianess problem on parsing
dhc
 pv6-pd
from comcast for the timeout, B) comcast has an endianess
problem C) we are not keeping properly track of the ipv6 address
assignment and/or lease length. D) Comcast isn't assigning ipv6
external addresses and subnets for more than a minute. E) we have some
problem on the wireless side in particular (but that seems independent
of the problem)

We have all generally been running fine with ipv6 tunneled through
hurricane, so
my assumption is that this is something specific to the directly connected
ge00
interface, in negotiating something with the upstream dhcpv6 and
dhcpv6-pd stuff.

So here's one of the symptoms. I have some packet captures and straces to
do:

Sat Jan 18 1
3:18:55
2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:19:57 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:21:01
  2014
user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:22:02 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:23:02 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:24:04 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:25:04 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:25:45 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq-dhcp3318:
RTR-ADVERT 2601:9:8580:c32::
Sat Jan 18 13:26:07 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:27:09 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading fi
rewall
due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:28:11 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()


On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Steven B
 arth
<cyrus@openwrt.org> wrote:

Fyi as stated earlier i made the switch to odhcpd yesterday. With that i
also switched routing from individual tables to source-constrained routes
in
the maintable.

Cheers,
Steven




Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> schrieb:

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com>
wrote:

I'm final
ly
getting back to this.

Hmm. if you uncomment eve
 rything
in /etc/dnsmasq.conf and restart
dnsmasq what happens? If you have got /64s you would end up doing
slaac and ra announcements via dnsmasq in this case.

That was on by default before (and what was tested in feburary). Later
on 6relayd started having a race with it and seemed to be "the
future", so I disabled the dnsmasq version, thinking that 6relayd was
the answer. It's entirely possible that's
merely configured wrong.




Now I get global /64's on my LAN interfaces, but I am still not
answering
dh
cp6 for
attached hosts.  I retried both version of the 6relayd init
script....

dnsmasq.conf contains:
enable-ra
dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:se00,ra-names,ra-stateless
dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:sw00,ra-names,ra-stateless
dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:gw00,ra-names,ra-stateless
dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:sw10,ra-names,ra-stateless<
 br
/>dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:gw10,ra-names,ra-stateless


I am running: Linux cerowrt 3.10.24 #1 Tue Dec 24 10:50:15 PST
2013.....
which might be just a bit too fresh....  Would you suggest another?



You are not getting slaac either?

An ifconfig on an interface and a packet dump of ipv6 packets would be
helpful.

I have a spare 3700, so I think I will try some alternate vintages.

Thanks,
--MM--
The
best way to predict the future is to create it.  - Alan Kay


Privacy matters!  We know from recent events that people are using our
services to speak in
defiance of unjust governments.   We treat privacy
and
security as matters of life and death, because for some users, they
are.


On Sun, Jan 5, 2014
  at
7:48 PM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>
wrote:

On 03.01.2014 19:43, Dave Taht wrote:


I was also experiencing a race condition with dnsmasq, while I had
it
enabling
ra
and
dhcpv6 via dnsmasq. At the moment that's turned off by default,
but
I did rather prefer having dns names for my ipv6
addresses...



Well 6relayd and odhcpd collect hostnames of clients acquired via
stateful
DHCPv6 and export them to dnsmasq in an additional hostfiles
 . At
least
that
seemed to work when I last tried it a few months ago. The only
disadvantage
is that there is no "ra-names" feature there.



Getting to names from dhcpv4 to slaac was a neat hack and a potential
RFC. So i figure spending the time to add the same functionality into
into something other than dnsmasq would be useful towards writing that
rfc.


is there a good way for 6re
layd
and dnsmasq-dhcpv6 to co-exist?



Ideally they could coexist in a way that you c
ould
select dnsmasq and /
or
odhcpd for different interfaces on the same machine. odhcpd supports
that
but dnsmasq the last time I've looked seem
 ed to
use a single socket
binding
to all interfaces for DHCP/v6 which prevents coexistance from working
correctly because odhcpd / 6relayd can't bind the socket after
dnsmasq
did
and vice versa.



Feel free to provide me with some debugging information of the
system
while
PD fails for you so I can have a look at the probable cause:

* "ifstatus ge00" (replace ge00 with your IPv6 upstream interface)
* "ip addr list dev
ge01"
(replace ge01 with the interface your
downstream
router is connected)
* "ps
| grep
6relayd"

Anyway I will migrate all the stuff to odhcpd soon (it's successor
which
shares a good part of the codebase b
 ut is a
bit better integrated
with
the
rest of the environment).



same question re dnsmasq.



Yeah as pointed out coexistence is a matter of binding sockets.
odhcpd
will
bring the functionality of dynamically enabling / disabling DHCPv4/v6
on
interfaces without restarting the daemon and loosing state. This is
one
of
the main reasons for the change and very much eases things for
high-level
protocols that do dynamic wan/lan detection.


Cheers,

Steven





Regard
s,

Steven



On 03.01.2014 18:31, Dave Taht wrote:

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:50 AM, cb.list6 <cb.list6@gmail.com>
wrote:



On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
wrote:

At one level I am happy to figure out this is a recently
introduced
bug.

On the other hand I am not sure if it is 6relayd.

What version of cero was working for you?




I am not entirely sure, but i think it was from September.

CB



At the moment I lack the ability to d
ebug
the breakage in ipv6
dhcp-pd
(which is odhcpd) (I am travelling).

I wi
 ll on
my next stop next week (tuesday) setup a dhcpv6pd server
and
see what I can see.

On Jan 3, 2014 12:21 AM, "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

I have been using CeroWRT on Comcast with a 3800 for about 6
month.
The
DHCP-PD config has always been a little unstable for me, but
working.

I recently upgraded to:

root@cerowrt:/etc/config# uname -a
Linux cerowrt 3.10.24 #1 Tue Dec 24 1
0:50:15
PST 2013 mips
GNU/Linux

My WAN
gets a
/128, but i cannot get DHCP-PD to work to get
addresses
on
the r
 est of
my interfaces.  The router does seem to have good
IPv6
access.


I fiddled with the 6relayd config and came up with this, but it
does
not
work.  Any pointers on how to get this back on track?  The
result
of
the
below config is that the /128 from the WAN interfaces is now
present
on
all
the interfaces but my attached computers get no addresses.


config server 'default'
option rd 'server'
option dhcpv6 'server'
option management_level '1'
list network 'ge01'
list network 'gw00'
list network 'gw01'
list network 'gw10'
list network 'gw11'
list network 'se00'
list network 'sw00'
list network 'sw10'
option fallback_relay 'rd dhcpv6 ndp'
option master 'ge00'

root@cerowrt:/etc/config# un
ame
-a




Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel










--
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt:
http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html







--
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt:
http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html




--
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt:
http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html



-- 
Dave Täht

Fixin
 g
bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html
------WZPM4Z0IOLYH42AEGD9I2A1OK07VFK--