[Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[cb.list6]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1166 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1535 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Dave Taht]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1639 bytes --]

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?
On Jan 3, 2014 12:21 AM, "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com> 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
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2382 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[cb.list6]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1833 bytes --]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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


> On Jan 3, 2014 12:21 AM, "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com> 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
>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3094 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Dave Taht]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:50 AM, cb.list6 <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com> 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

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Steven Barth]

Hi,

I haven't really touched 6relayd since October so not sure what is wrong 
atm.
There was a problem with its init script recently due to some shell 
script change in OpenWrt which I hopefully fixed yesterday (couldn't 
verify the issue or fix yet though).

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).


Regards,

Steven


On 03.01.2014 18:31, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:50 AM, cb.list6 <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com> 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
>>>>
>
>

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Dave Taht]

cb.list, please put

https://raw.github.com/dtaht/cerowrt-next/master/package/network/ipv6/6relayd/files/6relayd.init

into /etc/init.d/6relayd

and see what happens.

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I haven't really touched 6relayd since October so not sure what is wrong
> atm.
> There was a problem with its init script recently due to some shell script
> change in OpenWrt which I hopefully fixed yesterday (couldn't verify the
> issue or fix yet though).

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...

is there a good way for 6relayd and dnsmasq-dhcpv6 to co-exist?

> 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.

>
>
> Regards,
>
> Steven
>
>
>
> On 03.01.2014 18:31, Dave Taht wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:50 AM, cb.list6 <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com> 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

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Steven Barth]

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.

>
> 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 <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com> 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
>>>>>>
>>>
>
>

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Matt Mathis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6539 bytes --]

Background: some time earlier this year Comcast started allocating IPv6
addresses, and everything magically all worked (I know that real magic
requires wizards to work very hard behind the scenes.)

I was running the WNDR 3700, that we flashed at your (Dave's) place this
summer (3.10.7-1).

Sometime during the holidays IPv6 stopped working.  I didn't notice it
immediately, so I don't know if there should have been any obvious
triggers.   Note that both Comcast and my remotely managed clients
(Android, etc) probably received updates in this window.  LuCI
status->overview indicates a /128 on the upstream interface but no /60 or
/64 (although I now see that even with a global address block, this pages
does not show it).  From the router I can ping6 out.

I have a spare 3700, which is now freshly flashed with cerowrt 3.10.24 #1
Tue Dec 24 10:50:15 PST 2013.  I installed the 6relay fix on it.
My config is 100% vanilla except for SSIDs, pw's and the 6relay fix.

Still no joy for my home devices (both WiFi and wired), however now
ifconfig on the 3700 reports /64 subnets on all of its interfaces (and they
appear in LuCi networks but not the status overview).

6relay does not seem to actually start anything, and odhcp6c is running,
which feels a bit odd.  Is this correct?

Can you point me to the relevant RFCs?  Actually an overview of IPv6
address and router discovery would be most useful.  The IPv6 versions of
dhcp, arp, etc.

I need IPv6 at home for some other unrelated server side debugging....

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 Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org> 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.
>
>
>
>> 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 <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9126 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[cb.list6]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7130 bytes --]

Confirmed. My issue is a Comcast issue. Enabling debug on odhcp6 shows
comcast dhcpv6 is not allocating a prefix to me in Seattle.

JJB at Comcast acknowledged the issue and it is being worked. That is all
know.

My issue is not a cerowrt issue, sorry for the noise

CB
On Jan 5, 2014 4:42 PM, "Matt Mathis" <mattmathis@google.com> wrote:

> Background: some time earlier this year Comcast started allocating IPv6
> addresses, and everything magically all worked (I know that real magic
> requires wizards to work very hard behind the scenes.)
>
> I was running the WNDR 3700, that we flashed at your (Dave's) place this
> summer (3.10.7-1).
>
> Sometime during the holidays IPv6 stopped working.  I didn't notice it
> immediately, so I don't know if there should have been any obvious
> triggers.   Note that both Comcast and my remotely managed clients
> (Android, etc) probably received updates in this window.  LuCI
> status->overview indicates a /128 on the upstream interface but no /60 or
> /64 (although I now see that even with a global address block, this pages
> does not show it).  From the router I can ping6 out.
>
> I have a spare 3700, which is now freshly flashed with cerowrt 3.10.24 #1
> Tue Dec 24 10:50:15 PST 2013.  I installed the 6relay fix on it.
> My config is 100% vanilla except for SSIDs, pw's and the 6relay fix.
>
> Still no joy for my home devices (both WiFi and wired), however now
> ifconfig on the 3700 reports /64 subnets on all of its interfaces (and they
> appear in LuCi networks but not the status overview).
>
> 6relay does not seem to actually start anything, and odhcp6c is running,
> which feels a bit odd.  Is this correct?
>
> Can you point me to the relevant RFCs?  Actually an overview of IPv6
> address and router discovery would be most useful.  The IPv6 versions of
> dhcp, arp, etc.
>
> I need IPv6 at home for some other unrelated server side debugging....
>
> 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 Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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 <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>>>> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9647 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Dave Taht]

On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com> wrote:
> Background: some time earlier this year Comcast started allocating IPv6
> addresses, and everything magically all worked (I know that real magic
> requires wizards to work very hard behind the scenes.)

We'd got it up and running in comcast's lab in feburary or so.

> I was running the WNDR 3700, that we flashed at your (Dave's) place this
> summer (3.10.7-1).
>
> Sometime during the holidays IPv6 stopped working.  I didn't notice it
> immediately, so I don't know if there should have been any obvious triggers.
> Note that both Comcast and my remotely managed clients (Android, etc)
> probably received updates in this window.  LuCI status->overview indicates a
> /128 on the upstream interface but no /60 or /64 (although I now see that
> even with a global address block, this pages does not show it).  From the
> router I can ping6 out.
>
> I have a spare 3700, which is now freshly flashed with cerowrt 3.10.24 #1
> Tue Dec 24 10:50:15 PST 2013.  I installed the 6relay fix on it.
> My config is 100% vanilla except for SSIDs, pw's and the 6relay fix.
>
> Still no joy for my home devices (both WiFi and wired), however now ifconfig
> on the 3700 reports /64 subnets on all of its interfaces (and they appear in
> LuCi networks but not the status overview).
>
> 6relay does not seem to actually start anything, and odhcp6c is running,
> which feels a bit odd.  Is this correct?

odhcp6c is the client that makes the dhcpv6-pd request.

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.

> Can you point me to the relevant RFCs?  Actually an overview of IPv6 address
> and router discovery would be most useful.  The IPv6 versions of dhcp, arp,
> etc.

That's a rather large list.

> I need IPv6 at home for some other unrelated server side debugging...
>
> 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 Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org> 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.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com> 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

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Dave Taht]

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org> 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 <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com> 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

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Matt Mathis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7181 bytes --]

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?

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 <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org> 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 <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 11988 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Dave Taht]

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com> 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 <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org> 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 <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>> >>>>> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com> 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

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Steven Barth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8108 bytes --]

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 <dave.taht@gmail.com> schrieb:
>On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com>
>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 <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>
>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 <cb.list6@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht
><dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>> >>>>> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
>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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10220 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Dave Taht]

I just filed bug http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/438 on this issue
after working with matt until the wee hours.

I have to take a couple packet captures next.

To copy from the bug report:

On the plus side:

comcast ipv6 had been working fine between august and december on
cerowrt 3.10.7 (?)

we do get an external IPv6 address AND /60 dhcpv6-pd delegation from
comcast, and distribute the /64s to each of the subnets on cero. The
resulting native ipv6 connection works for getting into the router
itself and stays up all night...

On the minus side(s)

1) The AAAA record on the wan interface (ge00) is withdrawn and
renewed every minute or two. This triggers reloading the firewall,
which really isn't something you want happening every minute or two.
The delegation seems to persist longer than that, but...

2) We do not get dnsmasq distributing that /64 on any interface.
Interestingly if you manually add a new IPv6 address from that range
(say, whatever::2/64) dnsmasq picks it up and starts serving ipv6
addresses. (theory: we don't have that ipv6 delegation long enough for
dnsmasq to see it before they are withdrawn)

3) We get plenty of instruction traps IF you delegate to the wireless
and use it.
(there may be other factors on the instruction traps so don't take the
above as canon), but Running all night with just the ::2 manually
inserted on ethernet results in no instruction traps (but there was no
traffic either). running with with the manual ::2/64 inserted does
result in routable, working, ipv6 subnet addresses that dnsmasq sees
and distributes from.

4) tweak: ge01 needs to be added to the firewall rules for wan. maybe.

The net result is unusable native ipv6 on comcast. (comcast6.net is
also reporting unusable ipv6 on wireless on the xbox 1, and I don't
know if that's related)

Working theories: A) is we have an endianess problem on parsing
dhcpv6-pd from comcast for the timeout, B) comcast has an endianess
problem C) we are not keeping properly track of the ipv6 address
assignment and/or lease length. D) Comcast isn't assigning ipv6
external addresses and subnets for more than a minute. E) we have some
problem on the wireless side in particular (but that seems independent
of the problem)

We have all generally been running fine with ipv6 tunneled through hurricane, so
my assumption is that this is something specific to the directly connected ge00
interface, in negotiating something with the upstream dhcpv6 and
dhcpv6-pd stuff.

So here's one of the symptoms. I have some packet captures and straces to do:

Sat Jan 18 13:18:55 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:19:57 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:21:01 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:22:02 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:23:02 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:24:04 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:25:04 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:25:45 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq-dhcp3318:
RTR-ADVERT 2601:9:8580:c32::
Sat Jan 18 13:26:07 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:27:09 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()
Sat Jan 18 13:28:11 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
to ifupdate of ge01 ()


On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org> wrote:
> 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 <dave.taht@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com>
>> 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
>>> dh
>>>  cp6 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 <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org> 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 6re
>>>>>>  layd
>>>>>> 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 <cb.list6@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com> 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 1
>>>>>>>>>>>  0:50:15
>>>>>>>>>>> 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# un
>>>>>>>>>>>  ame
>>>>>>>>>>> -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



-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Steven Barth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 12838 bytes --]

That firewall reloading is due to comcast unnecessarily spamming ras every 3 seconds. We already filter it down to one reload per minute. I prepared another filter yesterday which will filter out updates that dont change anything but adress / route timers. So expect some solution for this reload spam in the coming days.



Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> schrieb:
>I just filed bug http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/438 on this issue
>after working with matt until the wee hours.
>
>I have to take a couple packet captures next.
>
>To copy from the bug report:
>
>On the plus side:
>
>comcast ipv6 had been working fine between august and december on
>cerowrt 3.10.7 (?)
>
>we do get an external IPv6 address AND /60 dhcpv6-pd delegation from
>comcast, and distribute the /64s to each of the subnets on cero. The
>resulting native ipv6 connection works for getting into the router
>itself and stays up all night...
>
>On the minus side(s)
>
>1) The AAAA record on the wan interface (ge00) is withdrawn and
>renewed every minute or two. This triggers reloading the firewall,
>which really isn't something you want happening every minute or two.
>The delegation seems to persist longer than that, but...
>
>2) We do not get dnsmasq distributing that /64 on any interface.
>Interestingly if you manually add a new IPv6 address from that range
>(say, whatever::2/64) dnsmasq picks it up and starts serving ipv6
>addresses. (theory: we don't have that ipv6 delegation long enough for
>dnsmasq to see it before they are withdrawn)
>
>3) We get plenty of instruction traps IF you delegate to the wireless
>and use it.
>(there may be other factors on the instruction traps so don't take the
>above as canon), but Running all night with just the ::2 manually
>inserted on ethernet results in no instruction traps (but there was no
>traffic either). running with with the manual ::2/64 inserted does
>result in routable, working, ipv6 subnet addresses that dnsmasq sees
>and distributes from.
>
>4) tweak: ge01 needs to be added to the firewall rules for wan. maybe.
>
>The net result is unusable native ipv6 on comcast. (comcast6.net is
>also reporting unusable ipv6 on wireless on the xbox 1, and I don't
>know if that's related)
>
>Working theories: A) is we have an endianess problem on parsing
>dhcpv6-pd from comcast for the timeout, B) comcast has an endianess
>problem C) we are not keeping properly track of the ipv6 address
>assignment and/or lease length. D) Comcast isn't assigning ipv6
>external addresses and subnets for more than a minute. E) we have some
>problem on the wireless side in particular (but that seems independent
>of the problem)
>
>We have all generally been running fine with ipv6 tunneled through
>hurricane, so
>my assumption is that this is something specific to the directly
>connected ge00
>interface, in negotiating something with the upstream dhcpv6 and
>dhcpv6-pd stuff.
>
>So here's one of the symptoms. I have some packet captures and straces
>to do:
>
>Sat Jan 18 13:18:55 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>Sat Jan 18 13:19:57 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>Sat Jan 18 13:21:01 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>Sat Jan 18 13:22:02 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>Sat Jan 18 13:23:02 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>Sat Jan 18 13:24:04 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>Sat Jan 18 13:25:04 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>Sat Jan 18 13:25:45 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq-dhcp3318:
>RTR-ADVERT 2601:9:8580:c32::
>Sat Jan 18 13:26:07 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>Sat Jan 18 13:27:09 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>Sat Jan 18 13:28:11 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>
>
>On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>
>wrote:
>> 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 <dave.taht@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com>
>>> 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
>>>> dh
>>>>  cp6 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 <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>
>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 6re
>>>>>>>  layd
>>>>>>> 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 <cb.list6@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht
><dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
>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 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>  0:50:15
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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# un
>>>>>>>>>>>>  ame
>>>>>>>>>>>> -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
>
>
>
>-- 
>Dave Täht
>
>Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt:
>http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 15467 bytes --]

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Dave Taht]

On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org> wrote:
> That firewall reloading is due to comcast unnecessarily spamming ras every 3
> seconds. We already filter it down to one reload per minute. I prepared
> another filter yesterday which will filter out updates that dont change
> anything but adress / route timers. So expect some solution for this reload
> spam in the coming days.

Wow, policy routing has really sprouted wings. No visible default route...


root@cerowrt:~# ip -6 route
2601:mynet:c30::/64 dev gw00  proto kernel  metric 256  expires 300345sec
2601:mynet:c31::/64 dev gw10  proto kernel  metric 256  expires 300345sec
2601:mynet:c32::/64 dev se00  proto kernel  metric 256
2601:mynet:c33::/64 dev sw00  proto kernel  metric 256  expires 300345sec
2601:mynet:c34::/64 dev sw10  proto kernel  metric 256  expires 300345sec
unreachable 2601:9:8580:c30::/60 dev lo  proto static  metric
2147483647  error -128
(the above is trick to reject stuff going to subnets you have but have
not delegated)

and the actual routing is all done via the rule table.

Can this already co-exist with 6in4 or 6rd running at the same time?

root@cerowrt:~# ip -6 rule
0:    from all lookup local
32766:    from all lookup main
80000:    from 2001:558:mywanaddr lookup 1004
90000:    from 2001:558:mywanaddr lookup 1004
90000:    from 2601:mynet:c32::1/64 iif se00 lookup 1004
90000:    from 2601:mynet:c33::1/64 iif sw00 lookup 1004
90000:    from 2601:mynet:c30::1/64 iif gw00 lookup 1004

but I'm confused, how do I get from mynet:c30 to mynet:c32

90000:    from 2601:mynet:c34::1/64 iif sw10 lookup 1004
90000:    from 2601:mynet:c31::1/64 iif gw10 lookup 1004
90001:    from all iif lo lookup 1001
90002:    from all iif lo lookup 1002
90003:    from all iif lo lookup 1003
90003:    from all iif lo lookup 1004
90013:    from all iif lo lookup 1010
90014:    from all iif lo lookup 1009
90015:    from all iif lo lookup 1006
90016:    from all iif lo lookup 1005
90017:    from all iif lo lookup 1007
90018:    from all iif lo lookup 1008
4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c32::1/64 iif se00 unreachable
4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c33::1/64 iif sw00 unreachable
4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c30::1/64 iif gw00 unreachable
4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c34::1/64 iif sw10 unreachable
4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c31::1/64 iif gw10 unreachable
4200000001:    from all iif lo failed_policy
4200000002:    from all iif se00 failed_policy
4200000003:    from all iif ge00 failed_policy
4200000003:    from all iif ge00 failed_policy
4200000013:    from all iif gw11 failed_policy
4200000014:    from all iif gw01 failed_policy
4200000015:    from all iif sw10 failed_policy
4200000016:    from all iif sw00 failed_policy
4200000017:    from all iif gw00 failed_policy
4200000018:    from all iif gw10 failed_policy
root@cerowrt:~# ip -6 route show table 1004
default via fe80::201:5cff:fe62:4e46 dev ge00  proto static  metric 1024

>
>
> Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>
>> I just filed bug http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/438 on this issue
>> after working with matt until the wee hours.
>>
>> I have to take a couple packet captures next.
>>
>> To copy from the bug report:
>>
>> On the plus side:
>>
>> comcast ipv6 had been working fine between august and december on
>> cerowrt 3.10.7 (?)
>>
>> we do get an external IPv6 address AND /60 dhcpv6-pd delegation from
>> comcast, and distribute the /64s to each of the subnets on cero. The
>> resulting native ipv6 connection works for getting into the router
>> itself and stays up all night...
>>
>> On the minus side(s)
>>
>> 1) The AAAA record on the wan interface (ge00) is withdrawn and
>> renewed every minute or two. This triggers reloading the firewall,
>> which really isn't something you want happening every minute or two.
>> The delegation seems to persist longer than that,
>> but...
>>
>> 2) We do not get dnsmasq distributing that /64 on any interface.
>> Interestingly if you manually add a new IPv6 address from that range
>> (say, whatever::2/64) dnsmasq picks it up and starts serving ipv6
>> addresses. (theory: we don't have that ipv6 delegation long enough for
>> dnsmasq to see it before they are withdrawn)
>>
>> 3) We get plenty of instruction traps IF you delegate to the wireless
>> and use it.
>> (there may be other factors on the instruction traps so don't take the
>> above as canon), but Running all night with just the ::2 manually
>> inserted on ethernet results in no instruction traps (but there was no
>> traffic either). running with with the manual ::2/64 inserted does
>> result in routable, working, ipv6 subnet addresses that dnsmasq sees
>> and distributes from.
>>
>> 4) tweak: ge01 needs to be added to the firewall rules for wan. maybe.
>>
>> The net result is unusable native ipv6 on comcast
>>  . (comcast6.net is
>> also reporting unusable ipv6 on wireless on the xbox 1, and I don't
>> know if that's related)
>>
>> Working theories: A) is we have an endianess problem on parsing
>> dhcpv6-pd from comcast for the timeout, B) comcast has an endianess
>> problem C) we are not keeping properly track of the ipv6 address
>> assignment and/or lease length. D) Comcast isn't assigning ipv6
>> external addresses and subnets for more than a minute. E) we have some
>> problem on the wireless side in particular (but that seems independent
>> of the problem)
>>
>> We have all generally been running fine with ipv6 tunneled through
>> hurricane, so
>> my assumption is that this is something specific to the directly connected
>> ge00
>> interface, in negotiating something with the upstream dhcpv6 and
>> dhcpv6-pd stuff.
>>
>> So here's one of the symptoms. I have some packet captures and straces to
>> do:
>>
>> Sat Jan 18 1
>>  3:18:55
>> 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>> Sat Jan 18 13:19:57 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>> Sat Jan 18 13:21:01 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>> Sat Jan 18 13:22:02 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>> Sat Jan 18 13:23:02 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>> Sat Jan 18 13:24:04 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>> Sat Jan 18 13:25:04 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>> Sat Jan 18 13:25:45 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq-dhcp3318:
>> RTR-ADVERT 2601:9:8580:c32::
>> Sat Jan 18 13:26:07 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>> Sat Jan 18 13:27:09 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading fi
>>  rewall
>> due
>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>> Sat Jan 18 13:28:11 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 <dave.taht@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Matt Mathis <mattmathis@google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm final
>>>>>  ly
>>>>> 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
>>>>> dh
>>>>> cp6 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 <dave.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>
>>>>>> 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 6re
>>>>>>>> layd
>>>>>>>> and dnsmasq-dhcpv6 to co-exist?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ideally they could coexist in a way that you c
>>>>>>>  ould
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regard
>>>>>>>>>  s,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Steven
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 03.01.2014 18:31, Dave Taht wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:50 AM, cb.list6 <cb.list6@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 d
>>>>>>>>>>  ebug
>>>>>>>>>> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com> 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 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0:50:15
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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# un
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ame
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> 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

Re: [Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

[Steven Barth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 17263 bytes --]

C30 to c32 should run through main table only which has no restrictions. In the new version from today we dont use policy rules that much any more and use source-routes instead. These can get picked up by babels as well and dont cause that much confusion ala "where is my default route".



Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> schrieb:
>On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>
>wrote:
>> That firewall reloading is due to comcast unnecessarily spamming ras
>every 3
>> seconds. We already filter it down to one reload per minute. I
>prepared
>> another filter yesterday which will filter out updates that dont
>change
>> anything but adress / route timers. So expect some solution for this
>reload
>> spam in the coming days.
>
>Wow, policy routing has really sprouted wings. No visible default
>route...
>
>
>root@cerowrt:~# ip -6 route
>2601:mynet:c30::/64 dev gw00  proto kernel  metric 256  expires
>300345sec
>2601:mynet:c31::/64 dev gw10  proto kernel  metric 256  expires
>300345sec
>2601:mynet:c32::/64 dev se00  proto kernel  metric 256
>2601:mynet:c33::/64 dev sw00  proto kernel  metric 256  expires
>300345sec
>2601:mynet:c34::/64 dev sw10  proto kernel  metric 256  expires
>300345sec
>unreachable 2601:9:8580:c30::/60 dev lo  proto static  metric
>2147483647  error -128
>(the above is trick to reject stuff going to subnets you have but have
>not delegated)
>
>and the actual routing is all done via the rule table.
>
>Can this already co-exist with 6in4 or 6rd running at the same time?
>
>root@cerowrt:~# ip -6 rule
>0:    from all lookup local
>32766:    from all lookup main
>80000:    from 2001:558:mywanaddr lookup 1004
>90000:    from 2001:558:mywanaddr lookup 1004
>90000:    from 2601:mynet:c32::1/64 iif se00 lookup 1004
>90000:    from 2601:mynet:c33::1/64 iif sw00 lookup 1004
>90000:    from 2601:mynet:c30::1/64 iif gw00 lookup 1004
>
>but I'm confused, how do I get from mynet:c30 to mynet:c32
>
>90000:    from 2601:mynet:c34::1/64 iif sw10 lookup 1004
>90000:    from 2601:mynet:c31::1/64 iif gw10 lookup 1004
>90001:    from all iif lo lookup 1001
>90002:    from all iif lo lookup 1002
>90003:    from all iif lo lookup 1003
>90003:    from all iif lo lookup 1004
>90013:    from all iif lo lookup 1010
>90014:    from all iif lo lookup 1009
>90015:    from all iif lo lookup 1006
>90016:    from all iif lo lookup 1005
>90017:    from all iif lo lookup 1007
>90018:    from all iif lo lookup 1008
>4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c32::1/64 iif se00 unreachable
>4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c33::1/64 iif sw00 unreachable
>4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c30::1/64 iif gw00 unreachable
>4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c34::1/64 iif sw10 unreachable
>4200000000:    from 2601:mynet:c31::1/64 iif gw10 unreachable
>4200000001:    from all iif lo failed_policy
>4200000002:    from all iif se00 failed_policy
>4200000003:    from all iif ge00 failed_policy
>4200000003:    from all iif ge00 failed_policy
>4200000013:    from all iif gw11 failed_policy
>4200000014:    from all iif gw01 failed_policy
>4200000015:    from all iif sw10 failed_policy
>4200000016:    from all iif sw00 failed_policy
>4200000017:    from all iif gw00 failed_policy
>4200000018:    from all iif gw10 failed_policy
>root@cerowrt:~# ip -6 route show table 1004
>default via fe80::201:5cff:fe62:4e46 dev ge00  proto static  metric
>1024
>
>>
>>
>> Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>
>>> I just filed bug http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/438 on this issue
>>> after working with matt until the wee hours.
>>>
>>> I have to take a couple packet captures next.
>>>
>>> To copy from the bug report:
>>>
>>> On the plus side:
>>>
>>> comcast ipv6 had been working fine between august and december on
>>> cerowrt 3.10.7 (?)
>>>
>>> we do get an external IPv6 address AND /60 dhcpv6-pd delegation from
>>> comcast, and distribute the /64s to each of the subnets on cero. The
>>> resulting native ipv6 connection works for getting into the router
>>> itself and stays up all night...
>>>
>>> On the minus side(s)
>>>
>>> 1) The AAAA record on the wan interface (ge00) is withdrawn and
>>> renewed every minute or two. This triggers reloading the firewall,
>>> which really isn't something you want happening every minute or two.
>>> The delegation seems to persist longer than that,
>>> but...
>>>
>>> 2) We do not get dnsmasq distributing that /64 on any interface.
>>> Interestingly if you manually add a new IPv6 address from that range
>>> (say, whatever::2/64) dnsmasq picks it up and starts serving ipv6
>>> addresses. (theory: we don't have that ipv6 delegation long enough
>for
>>> dnsmasq to see it before they are withdrawn)
>>>
>>> 3) We get plenty of instruction traps IF you delegate to the
>wireless
>>> and use it.
>>> (there may be other factors on the instruction traps so don't take
>the
>>> above as canon), but Running all night with just the ::2 manually
>>> inserted on ethernet results in no instruction traps (but there was
>no
>>> traffic either). running with with the manual ::2/64 inserted does
>>> result in routable, working, ipv6 subnet addresses that dnsmasq sees
>>> and distributes from.
>>>
>>> 4) tweak: ge01 needs to be added to the firewall rules for wan.
>maybe.
>>>
>>> The net result is unusable native ipv6 on comcast
>>>  . (comcast6.net is
>>> also reporting unusable ipv6 on wireless on the xbox 1, and I don't
>>> know if that's related)
>>>
>>> Working theories: A) is we have an endianess problem on parsing
>>> dhcpv6-pd from comcast for the timeout, B) comcast has an endianess
>>> problem C) we are not keeping properly track of the ipv6 address
>>> assignment and/or lease length. D) Comcast isn't assigning ipv6
>>> external addresses and subnets for more than a minute. E) we have
>some
>>> problem on the wireless side in particular (but that seems
>independent
>>> of the problem)
>>>
>>> We have all generally been running fine with ipv6 tunneled through
>>> hurricane, so
>>> my assumption is that this is something specific to the directly
>connected
>>> ge00
>>> interface, in negotiating something with the upstream dhcpv6 and
>>> dhcpv6-pd stuff.
>>>
>>> So here's one of the symptoms. I have some packet captures and
>straces to
>>> do:
>>>
>>> Sat Jan 18 1
>>>  3:18:55
>>> 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall due
>>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>>> Sat Jan 18 13:19:57 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall
>due
>>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>>> Sat Jan 18 13:21:01 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall
>due
>>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>>> Sat Jan 18 13:22:02 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall
>due
>>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>>> Sat Jan 18 13:23:02 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall
>due
>>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>>> Sat Jan 18 13:24:04 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall
>due
>>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>>> Sat Jan 18 13:25:04 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall
>due
>>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>>> Sat Jan 18 13:25:45 2014 daemon.info dnsmasq-dhcp3318:
>>> RTR-ADVERT 2601:9:8580:c32::
>>> Sat Jan 18 13:26:07 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall
>due
>>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>>> Sat Jan 18 13:27:09 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading fi
>>>  rewall
>>> due
>>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>>> Sat Jan 18 13:28:11 2014 user.notice firewall: Reloading firewall
>due
>>> to ifupdate of ge01 ()
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>
>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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 <dave.taht@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Matt Mathis
><mattmathis@google.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm final
>>>>>>  ly
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> dh
>>>>>> cp6 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 <dave.taht@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus@openwrt.org>
>>>>>>> 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 6re
>>>>>>>>> layd
>>>>>>>>> and dnsmasq-dhcpv6 to co-exist?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ideally they could coexist in a way that you c
>>>>>>>>  ould
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regard
>>>>>>>>>>  s,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Steven
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 03.01.2014 18:31, Dave Taht wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:50 AM, cb.list6
><cb.list6@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht
><dave.taht@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 d
>>>>>>>>>>>  ebug
>>>>>>>>>>> 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" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
>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 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0:50:15
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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# un
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 19642 bytes --]