On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 09:18:43AM -0400, Dave Taht wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Denis Ovsienko <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Does anybody know where this difference comes from? > > > > The difference comes from NetworkManager. Its efforts in reproducing > > high-metric RTPROT_KERNEL routes with low-metric RTPROT_STATIC ones > > are effectively hiding the kernel issue outside of CeroWrt runtime. > > Would it be better to add a watchdog shell script, which does the > > same, or patch the kernel? > > I would *much rather* patch the kernel than have a watchdog. However I > don't quite understand > the redistribution issue vs a vs ipv6 here. If I have a "redistribute > kernel" on for ipv4, it does propagate the default route.
I'm not sure I understood your problem here, but if it boils down to "zebra doesn't redistribute an IPv6 RA default route", then that's by design and shouldn't be touched. IPv6 RA is a router to host protocol. Routers should never accept information from it, it is neither secure nor able to convey enough details to prevent loops or dead-end routes. This is also why enabling IPv6 forwarding disables reception of route advertisements in-kernel. If I understand correctly, your use-case is a mesh router that acts as a host on a "parent" network. If so, this case should be handled by a separate daemon that receives and processes IPv6 RAs, hopefully applies some filtering. Also, this absolutely cannot be default behaviour. If I misunderstood the issues, please ignore my mail. Cheers, -David P.S.: Also, NetworkManager and Quagga should never run on the same host. NetworkManager does Host processing, Quagga does Router processing, and those two are mutually exclusive. _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
