[Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

Dave Taht dave.taht at gmail.com
Fri Jan 17 07:58:05 EST 2014 

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Matt Mathis <mattmathis at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus at 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 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <dave.taht at 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 at 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 at 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 at cerowrt:/etc/config# uname -a
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list
>> >>>>>>> Cerowrt-devel at 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

More information about the Cerowrt-devel mailing list