On 08/10/2013 11:42, Simon Kelley wrote: > > This is definitely a bug. Sorry Simon! > > Historically, the prefix-length in the dhcp-range has had to match the > prefix length configured into the interface. This was carried over > from DHCPv4. If, as an experiment, you stop using constructed ranges > and just configure the whole address in the dhcp-range, you'll find > the same effect. If the prefix length in the range is 64 (it can't be > smaller....) and the prefix length in the interface is 48 then things > will break in the same way: no DHCPv6 and no RA. I tried exactly that and found exactly the same behaviour but then got diverted into my paid work before I could update you. > > To add insult to injury, the code which "contructs" DHCP ranges > doesn't check the prefix length. It will happy construct a DHCP range > based on an address configured into an interface, even if the > prefix-length of that address is smaller. The constructed dhcp-range > has its prefix length copied from the template, so it's useless for > actually doing DHCPv6 or RA. > > To make things consistent, the constructor code should not contruct > dhcp-ranges unless the prefix lengths match. > > It's also at least arguable that the RA and DHCP code should not > insist on the prefix lengths being the same: as you say, a > prefix-length on the interface less-then or equal to the one in the > dhcp-range would make some sense. One has to be careful though: which > of the two prefix ranges should actually be advertised in the Router > Advertisements? > Well speaking from a purely selfish point of view, and wanting to do the least amount of work in terms of integration with 'Tomato', I'd like it to construct, RA & DHCPv6 the /64 and ignore the fact that the interface is configured with a /48. ie. take note of the ',64' parameter in the dhcp-range.
You have a much, much better idea of how this IPv6 stuff is supposed to work than me so my idea is probably pants! Kevin
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss