On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 20:45 +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Anders Blomdell > > > Will look into VRRP, but 4.1 from http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc579 makes me > > suspicious: > > > > In the IPv6 case (that is, IPvX is IPv6 everywhere in the figure), > > each router has a link-local IPv6 address on the LAN interface (Rtr1 > > is assigned IPv6 Link-Local A and Rtr2 is assigned IPv6 Link- > > Local B), and each host learns a default route from Router > > Advertisements through one of the routers (in this example, they all > > use Rtr1's IPv6 Link-Local A). > > > > won't NetworkManager pick up those routes as well, and [still] mess up > > routing? > > Well, with VRRP, only the master router will send out Router > Advertisements for the virtual router. The backup(s) will not. See RFC > 5798 section 6.4.2 (325), 6.4.3 (630), and 8.2.3. > > So from the hosts' point of view, only one default router exists. Even > the MAC address is a virtual one that fails over, so they don't even > have to go through NUD. > > I know this works very well with Juniper's VRRPv3 implementation, at > least. I'm not aware of any open-source VRRPv3 implementation for Linux, > I'm afraid. > > > Would [nm-policy.c: update_ip6_routing] be a good starting-point for looking > > into this? > > I don't really know, since I'm not really a NM hacker. My role here is > to bitch and moan about all things IPv6 in the hopes that the actual NM > hackers try to shut me up once in a while by actually implementing what > I'm bitching about. ;-)
And I actually appreciate you doing this. I hope you keep doing it. Dan _______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
