From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from forward2.mail.yandex.net (forward2.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:0:602::2]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD699202235 for ; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 01:10:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web7d.yandex.ru (web7d.yandex.ru [77.88.47.185]) by forward2.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id B2B7D12A1F37; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:10:08 +0400 (MSK) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1341303008; bh=RIwNbBy5QbhzrX5CmW6Tcbx32ANx6+Kr4S6F+SjaKUE=; h=From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:MIME-Version:Message-Id: Date:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=QimF0vF0M7PI6aFjmqOgqThH8fe5pSDBkxqyBKsNEKRNuPj/rxXtdm8bqegk/Kb1Z UQm8gKRbTaYkO0kf4oKMNu2VfkuMMt8Rwqf/omOGAb/Y0fEQLnxv+SJ7kwmhXaQnCd eAfhmaGI9oFZH2oKh4SYiP7XB3QqlHZyM/oK78hs= Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by web7d.yandex.ru (Yandex) with ESMTP id 70D182518143; Tue, 3 Jul 2012 12:10:08 +0400 (MSK) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.ru; s=mail; t=1341303008; bh=RIwNbBy5QbhzrX5CmW6Tcbx32ANx6+Kr4S6F+SjaKUE=; h=From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:MIME-Version:Message-Id: Date:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type; b=QimF0vF0M7PI6aFjmqOgqThH8fe5pSDBkxqyBKsNEKRNuPj/rxXtdm8bqegk/Kb1Z UQm8gKRbTaYkO0kf4oKMNu2VfkuMMt8Rwqf/omOGAb/Y0fEQLnxv+SJ7kwmhXaQnCd eAfhmaGI9oFZH2oKh4SYiP7XB3QqlHZyM/oK78hs= Received: from dhcp-217-131-wifi.yandex.net (dhcp-217-131-wifi.yandex.net [213.180.217.131]) by web7d.yandex.ru with HTTP; Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:10:08 +0400 From: Denis Ovsienko To: cerowrt-devel In-Reply-To: <206861341262491@web23d.yandex.ru> References: <2187151341044351@web9d.yandex.ru> <7isjdcpm1q.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> <40851341093226@web25d.yandex.ru> <7ik3yoz7p2.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> <1521341229978@web13h.yandex.ru> <206861341262491@web23d.yandex.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <458481341303008@web7d.yandex.ru> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:10:08 +0400 X-Mailer: Yamail [ http://yandex.ru ] 5.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Cc: babel-users 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: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 08:10:13 -0000 >> šHow goeth ipv6? > > IPv6 default route is lost somewhere on the way from kernel to zebra process (and not promoted by babeld respectively). I'll try looking at it tomorrow and also pulling together some thoughts on the rest of your message. > This seems to be caused by a difference in kernel behaviour between current CeroWrt and, for example, my notebook (3.3.7-1.fc16.x86_64). Plugged into the same network one after another, they end up with different default routes in kernel: (cero) default via fe80::230:48ff:fed4:63e4 dev ge00 proto kernel metric 1024 expires 1797sec (notebook) default via fe80::230:48ff:fed4:63e4 dev em1 proto static metric 1 default via fe80::230:48ff:fed4:63e4 dev em1 proto kernel metric 1024 expires 1786sec Note the kernel/static route protocol. The established practice of zebra process used to be ignoring any RTPROT_KERNEL netlink messages. It is not clear if RTPROT_BOOT/RTPROT_RA should be used for a RA-originated route, but RTPROT_STATIC does the job in the latter case anyway and the default route reaches zebra. In the former case the default route is effectively isolated from zebra. Does anybody know where this difference comes from? -- Denis Ovsienko