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 finally 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 >> dhcp6 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 6relayd and dnsmasq-dhcpv6 to co-exist? >>> > >>> > Ideally they could coexist in a way that you could 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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 debug 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 10:50:15 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# uname -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