<div dir="ltr"><div>I'm finally getting back to this. </div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Hmm. if you uncomment everything in /etc/dnsmasq.conf and restart</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">dnsmasq what happens? If you have got /64s you would end up doing</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">slaac and ra announcements via dnsmasq in this case.</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">That was on by default before (and what was tested in feburary). Later</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">on 6relayd started having a race with it and seemed to be "the</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">future", so I disabled the dnsmasq version, thinking that 6relayd was</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">the answer. It's entirely possible that's</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">merely configured wrong.</span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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....</div>
<div><br></div><div>dnsmasq.conf contains:<br></div><div><div>enable-ra </div><div>dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:se00,ra-names,ra-stateless </div>
<div>dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:sw00,ra-names,ra-stateless </div><div>dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:gw00,ra-names,ra-stateless </div><div>dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:sw10,ra-names,ra-stateless </div>
<div>dhcp-range=::1,::400,constructor:gw10,ra-names,ra-stateless</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>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?</div>
<div><br></div><div>I have a spare 3700, so I think I will try some alternate vintages.</div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Thanks,</div>--MM--<br>The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Alan Kay<br>
<br>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.</div>
</div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Dave Taht <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com" target="_blank">dave.taht@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Steven Barth <<a href="mailto:cyrus@openwrt.org">cyrus@openwrt.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="im">> On 03.01.2014 19:43, Dave Taht wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I was also experiencing a race condition with dnsmasq, while I had it<br>
>> enabling<br>
>> ra and dhcpv6 via dnsmasq. At the moment that's turned off by default, but<br>
>> I did rather prefer having dns names for my ipv6 addresses...<br>
><br>
> Well 6relayd and odhcpd collect hostnames of clients acquired via stateful<br>
> DHCPv6 and export them to dnsmasq in an additional hostfiles. At least that<br>
> seemed to work when I last tried it a few months ago. The only disadvantage<br>
> is that there is no "ra-names" feature there.<br>
<br>
</div>Getting to names from dhcpv4 to slaac was a neat hack and a potential<br>
RFC. So i figure spending the time to add the same functionality into<br>
into something other than dnsmasq would be useful towards writing that<br>
rfc.<br>
<div class=""><div class="h5">><br>
>><br>
>> is there a good way for 6relayd and dnsmasq-dhcpv6 to co-exist?<br>
><br>
> Ideally they could coexist in a way that you could select dnsmasq and / or<br>
> odhcpd for different interfaces on the same machine. odhcpd supports that<br>
> but dnsmasq the last time I've looked seemed to use a single socket binding<br>
> to all interfaces for DHCP/v6 which prevents coexistance from working<br>
> correctly because odhcpd / 6relayd can't bind the socket after dnsmasq did<br>
> and vice versa.<br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>>> Feel free to provide me with some debugging information of the system<br>
>>> while<br>
>>> PD fails for you so I can have a look at the probable cause:<br>
>>><br>
>>> * "ifstatus ge00" (replace ge00 with your IPv6 upstream interface)<br>
>>> * "ip addr list dev ge01" (replace ge01 with the interface your<br>
>>> downstream<br>
>>> router is connected)<br>
>>> * "ps | grep 6relayd"<br>
>>><br>
>>> Anyway I will migrate all the stuff to odhcpd soon (it's successor which<br>
>>> shares a good part of the codebase but is a bit better integrated with<br>
>>> the<br>
>>> rest of the environment).<br>
>><br>
>> same question re dnsmasq.<br>
><br>
> Yeah as pointed out coexistence is a matter of binding sockets. odhcpd will<br>
> bring the functionality of dynamically enabling / disabling DHCPv4/v6 on<br>
> interfaces without restarting the daemon and loosing state. This is one of<br>
> the main reasons for the change and very much eases things for high-level<br>
> protocols that do dynamic wan/lan detection.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Cheers,<br>
><br>
> Steven<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>>><br>
>>> Regards,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Steven<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 03.01.2014 18:31, Dave Taht wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:50 AM, cb.list6 <<a href="mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com">cb.list6@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Dave Taht <<a href="mailto:dave.taht@gmail.com">dave.taht@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> At one level I am happy to figure out this is a recently introduced<br>
>>>>>> bug.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On the other hand I am not sure if it is 6relayd.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> What version of cero was working for you?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I am not entirely sure, but i think it was from September.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> CB<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> At the moment I lack the ability to debug the breakage in ipv6 dhcp-pd<br>
>>>> (which is odhcpd) (I am travelling).<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I will on my next stop next week (tuesday) setup a dhcpv6pd server and<br>
>>>> see what I can see.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Jan 3, 2014 12:21 AM, "cb.list6" <<a href="mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com">cb.list6@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Hi,<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> I have been using CeroWRT on Comcast with a 3800 for about 6 month.<br>
>>>>>>> The<br>
>>>>>>> DHCP-PD config has always been a little unstable for me, but working.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> I recently upgraded to:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> root@cerowrt:/etc/config# uname -a<br>
>>>>>>> Linux cerowrt 3.10.24 #1 Tue Dec 24 10:50:15 PST 2013 mips GNU/Linux<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> My WAN gets a /128, but i cannot get DHCP-PD to work to get addresses<br>
>>>>>>> on<br>
>>>>>>> the rest of my interfaces. The router does seem to have good IPv6<br>
>>>>>>> access.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> I fiddled with the 6relayd config and came up with this, but it does<br>
>>>>>>> not<br>
>>>>>>> work. Any pointers on how to get this back on track? The result of<br>
>>>>>>> the<br>
>>>>>>> below config is that the /128 from the WAN interfaces is now present<br>
>>>>>>> on<br>
>>>>>>> all<br>
>>>>>>> the interfaces but my attached computers get no addresses.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> config server 'default'<br>
>>>>>>> option rd 'server'<br>
>>>>>>> option dhcpv6 'server'<br>
>>>>>>> option management_level '1'<br>
>>>>>>> list network 'ge01'<br>
>>>>>>> list network 'gw00'<br>
>>>>>>> list network 'gw01'<br>
>>>>>>> list network 'gw10'<br>
>>>>>>> list network 'gw11'<br>
>>>>>>> list network 'se00'<br>
>>>>>>> list network 'sw00'<br>
>>>>>>> list network 'sw10'<br>
>>>>>>> option fallback_relay 'rd dhcpv6 ndp'<br>
>>>>>>> option master 'ge00'<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> root@cerowrt:/etc/config# uname -a<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>> Cerowrt-devel mailing list<br>
>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net">Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net</a><br>
>>>>>>> <a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel" target="_blank">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel</a><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><div class=""><div class="h5">--<br>
Dave Täht<br>
<br>
Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: <a href="http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html" target="_blank">http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>