From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from spaceboyz.net (spaceboyz.net [IPv6:2001:8d8:81:5c0::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D5C4201B52 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:59:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jupiter.n2.diac24.net ([2001:8d8:81:5c2:21b:fcff:fe4c:9e6f]) by spaceboyz.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SnBsW-0003Rb-1J; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:59:36 +0200 Received: from equinox by jupiter.n2.diac24.net with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1SnBsV-0001Wd-IC; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:59:35 +0200 Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:59:35 +0200 From: David Lamparter To: Dave Taht Message-ID: <20120706165935.GB2916974@jupiter.n2.diac24.net> References: <7isjdcpm1q.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> <40851341093226@web25d.yandex.ru> <7ik3yoz7p2.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> <1521341229978@web13h.yandex.ru> <206861341262491@web23d.yandex.ru> <458481341303008@web7d.yandex.ru> <751571341318910@web30g.yandex.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 07 Jul 2012 07:20:59 -0700 Cc: babel-users , cerowrt-devel Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [Babel-users] switching cerowrt to quagga-babeld issues 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: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 16:59:43 -0000 On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 09:18:43AM -0400, Dave Taht wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Denis Ovsienko 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.