On 2016-10-13 09:36, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Jeroen Massar <jer...@massar.ch> > >> RA's only install the /64 and when default announced a default. >> >> Thus 'the rest of the ULA /48' would require a default route to be >> installed to reach that... >> >> When the device does not install a default route, there won't be an >> entry for anything in that /48, just the /64 and thus that space won't >> be reachable. > > Not if you set the accept_ra_rt_info_max_plen sysctl to >= 48 (and the > router implements RFC 7084 L-3).
Which is why looking at the exact RA is important. > As far as I know, this sysctl is 0 by > default which causes the kernel to ignore RIOs. Correct. See among st others here for reasoning: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/331802/ and as it is default 0, unless one does already salt/puppet/etc to change that default, it won't easily get deployed; and if one does salt/puppet/etc then adding static routes can also work. Much easier and better to let the actual routers decide on routing though and not end-hosts. > I believe that Windows do accept RIOs by default so that's probably why > it worked for Brian. NetworkManager user-space RA processing will also > respect RIOs by default. Only silly people run broken software like "NetworkManager" ;) Greets, Jeroen