[Cerowrt-devel] 6relayd

Steven Barth cyrus at openwrt.org
Sat Jan 18 11:34:20 EST 2014 

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 at gmail.com> schrieb:
>On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Steven Barth <cyrus at 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 at 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 at 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 at cerowrt:~# ip -6 route show table 1004
>default via fe80::201:5cff:fe62:4e46 dev ge00  proto static  metric
>1024
>
>>
>>
>> Dave Taht <dave.taht at 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 at 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 at gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:52 AM, Matt Mathis
><mattmathis at 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 at cerowrt:/etc/config# un
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ame
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/attachments/20140118/38c99d7f/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Cerowrt-devel mailing list