Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Babel-users] switching cerowrt to quagga-babeld issues

[David Lamparter <equinox@diac24.net>]

On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 09:18:43AM -0400, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Denis Ovsienko <infrastation@yandex.ru> wrote:
> >> Does anybody know where this difference comes from?
> >
> > The difference comes from NetworkManager. Its efforts in reproducing
> > high-metric RTPROT_KERNEL routes with low-metric RTPROT_STATIC ones
> > are effectively hiding the kernel issue outside of CeroWrt runtime.
> > Would it be better to add a watchdog shell script, which does the
> > same, or patch the kernel?
> 
> I would *much rather* patch the kernel than have a watchdog. However I
> don't quite understand
> the redistribution issue vs a vs ipv6 here. If I have a "redistribute
> kernel" on for ipv4, it does propagate the default route.

I'm not sure I understood your problem here, but if it boils down to
"zebra doesn't redistribute an IPv6 RA default route", then that's by
design and shouldn't be touched.

IPv6 RA is a router to host protocol.  Routers should never accept
information from it, it is neither secure nor able to convey enough
details to prevent loops or dead-end routes.

This is also why enabling IPv6 forwarding disables reception of route
advertisements in-kernel.

If I understand correctly, your use-case is a mesh router that acts as a
host on a "parent" network.  If so, this case should be handled by a
separate daemon that receives and processes IPv6 RAs, hopefully applies
some filtering.  Also, this absolutely cannot be default behaviour.

If I misunderstood the issues, please ignore my mail.

Cheers,


-David


P.S.: Also, NetworkManager and Quagga should never run on the same host.
NetworkManager does Host processing, Quagga does Router processing, and
those two are mutually exclusive.