On Mon, 9 May 2016, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Just got a “screen” capture from one of those situations (rdisc6).
Hopefully is useful ! They made it from a virtual machine in the same network
as the Androids have the problema, having the VMware interfaces in bridge mode.
So that looks like something is sending an RA, announcing itself as a
router but there are no addresses to be used on the link (there is no
on-link prefix thus implicitly A=0, and M=0).
My guess is that any device which sees this, will install default IPv6
route but will only have link local addresses on the interface, thus there
is no source address to use to send packets to the world outside the link.
According to standards, this shouldn't be a problem. IPv6 would not be
used to communicate with the outside world.
Looking at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6724 2.1 and the table there.
Why is there nothing there matching fe80::/10 ? I guess it just implicitly
takes for granted that anything in fe80::/10 can't be used without also
specifying the interface? If someone did something "smart" and thought
they'd help the user by not requiring them to specify interface, then this
might cause problems unless the application immediately gets an error
back? And if it gets an error back, how do we know it tries the next
option, for instance IPv4? Could this be the problem here, the
applications only try one address family and if that doesn't work, it
won't establish the notification channel?
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]
