From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.129]) (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 9AE78201B52 for ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr (hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr [134.157.168.1]) by shiva.jussieu.fr (8.14.4/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id q66GqxvQ065789 ; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:53:12 +0200 (CEST) X-Ids: 168 Received: from lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr (lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr [134.157.168.57]) by hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DB26C1054; Fri, 6 Jul 2012 18:52:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jch by lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1SnBm6-0002lt-Ac; Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:52:58 +0200 From: Juliusz Chroboczek To: Denis Ovsienko 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> <458481341303008@web7d.yandex.ru> <751571341318910@web30g.yandex.ru> <847401341324850@web9f.yandex.ru> <572331341592607@web3g.yandex.ru> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 18:52:58 +0200 In-Reply-To: <572331341592607@web3g.yandex.ru> (Denis Ovsienko's message of "Fri, 06 Jul 2012 20:36:47 +0400") Message-ID: <7i62a0x251.fsf_-_@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Miltered: at jchkmail.jussieu.fr with ID 4FF717EB.003 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 4FF717EB.003/134.157.168.1/hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr/hydrogene.pps.jussieu.fr/ Cc: babel-users , cerowrt-devel Subject: [Cerowrt-devel] IPv6 RA and RTPROT_whatever [was: 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 16:53:57 -0000 > There is a kernel patch attached, which should fix the issue with IPv6 > default route delivery in CeroWrt (it does fix it on my PC). I'm a little bit confused. RAs are supposed to be ignored by routers -- the RFCs are very clear on that. Linux obeys the RFCs, it will disable accept_ra when forwarding is set on an interface. Now there's a race condition -- if the RA was accepted before the routing daemon set the forwarding knob, then the default route will remain. However, it will not be renewed -- when the RA expires, you'll lose your default route. The workaround to this race condition is to have the routing daemon ignore RA-originated routes. This is traditionally done by making such routes RTPROT_BOOT and ignoring such routes in the routing daemon (and installing routing-protocol-originated routes with a lower metric). So am I'm confused, or is marking RA-originated routes as anything else than RTPROT_BOOT exactly the wrong thing to do? -- Juliusz