From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-we0-x232.google.com (mail-we0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEAE321F194 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 04:58:07 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id t60so4388980wes.23 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 04:58:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=avpqpUAVduXfpJU7jl/tLpADurcAcjBD3/5di/9ZlXo=; b=tW8rkaCfF9TuGEPwTSwQS3KpqOjXjRT/08RzoIZCm7ie3SrBHLWSm1NlNsvZx/2Kp2 8Gk+0qinxU2/2CYmzIBMAs0XKRvkZ/HLLsbM0Mozy/j+QyN6/TPtHl6sH8HiFWIyhXmS avZtYVpgM0Wr32XNiMfyZjcE5zfpFQqFb+pBHDPESaVfHzwkAB3JoBdPyJD4PwD+bM/q cqy1Ypko0ka8mPrBxOX+6dbq08ABSEv2trtfmcVd/65nAuqgxELk/FPbwOT6wGxrG3gV 2B+Y0N/T5m1hesm0Y8IsaK2hQh0zUcnV9Z6IZrgQ+u+vYQrnkyFSUxDOfeAYCFxzMRNz DlRw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.90.144 with SMTP id bw16mr1871987wjb.1.1389963485562; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 04:58:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.217.123.69 with HTTP; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 04:58:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <52C6FE3C.6020207@openwrt.org> <52C7D4CA.9030108@openwrt.org> Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 07:58:05 -0500 Message-ID: From: Dave Taht To: Matt Mathis Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Steven Barth , "cb.list6" , "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd 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, 17 Jan 2014 12:58:11 -0000 X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 12:58:11 -0000 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=3D::1,::400,constructor:se00,ra-names,ra-stateless > dhcp-range=3D::1,::400,constructor:sw00,ra-names,ra-stateless > dhcp-range=3D::1,::400,constructor:gw00,ra-names,ra-stateless > dhcp-range=3D::1,::400,constructor:sw10,ra-names,ra-stateless > dhcp-range=3D::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 a= nd > 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 syste= m >> >>> 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 wi= th >> >>> 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 on= e >> > 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 wrot= e: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 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 introduc= ed >> >>>>>> 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 IP= v6 >> >>>>>>> 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 resul= t >> >>>>>>> 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 T=E4ht >> >> Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: >> http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html > > --=20 Dave T=E4ht Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.= html