Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

2016-10-12 Thread Brian E Carpenter 
This creates a tricky problem for homenet, I think, but I agree that my CE
is doing what that requirement says. This also creates a truly annoying
coding problem for me, which I won't go into here (except to gripe that Linux
makes it very annoying indeed to discover your own global unicast address).

Thanks
   Brian

On 13/10/2016 16:55, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> The linux host is correctly not adding a default route because the RA
> specifies a router lifetime of 0, likely due to RFC 7084 requirement G-4.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I'll send you the RA packet off-list.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On 13/10/2016 14:10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 13/10/2016 13:47, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
 On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
 brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But what it says (before I install the correct default route) is
>
> fd00::/64 via fe80::be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39 dev wlp2s0  proto ra  metric
>> 600
> pref medium
> fe80::/64 dev wlp2s0  proto kernel  metric 256  pref medium
>
> No default, as you can see.
>

 Do you have a tcpdump of the RA?
>>>
>>> No. Any suggestions how I can catch one? Would a Wireshark capture be
>> useful?
>>>
>>> Brian
>>>
>>
>

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

2016-10-12 Thread Lorenzo Colitti 
The linux host is correctly not adding a default route because the RA
specifies a router lifetime of 0, likely due to RFC 7084 requirement G-4.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll send you the RA packet off-list.
>
> Brian
>
> On 13/10/2016 14:10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On 13/10/2016 13:47, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> >> brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> But what it says (before I install the correct default route) is
> >>>
> >>> fd00::/64 via fe80::be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39 dev wlp2s0  proto ra  metric
> 600
> >>> pref medium
> >>> fe80::/64 dev wlp2s0  proto kernel  metric 256  pref medium
> >>>
> >>> No default, as you can see.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Do you have a tcpdump of the RA?
> >
> > No. Any suggestions how I can catch one? Would a Wireshark capture be
> useful?
> >
> > Brian
> >
>

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

2016-10-12 Thread Brian E Carpenter 
I'll send you the RA packet off-list.

Brian

On 13/10/2016 14:10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 13/10/2016 13:47, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
>> brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But what it says (before I install the correct default route) is
>>>
>>> fd00::/64 via fe80::be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39 dev wlp2s0  proto ra  metric 600
>>> pref medium
>>> fe80::/64 dev wlp2s0  proto kernel  metric 256  pref medium
>>>
>>> No default, as you can see.
>>>
>>
>> Do you have a tcpdump of the RA?
> 
> No. Any suggestions how I can catch one? Would a Wireshark capture be useful?
> 
> Brian
>

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

2016-10-12 Thread Brian E Carpenter 
On 13/10/2016 13:47, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> But what it says (before I install the correct default route) is
>>
>> fd00::/64 via fe80::be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39 dev wlp2s0  proto ra  metric 600
>> pref medium
>> fe80::/64 dev wlp2s0  proto kernel  metric 256  pref medium
>>
>> No default, as you can see.
>>
> 
> Do you have a tcpdump of the RA?

No. Any suggestions how I can catch one? Would a Wireshark capture be useful?

Brian

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

2016-10-12 Thread Brian E Carpenter 
On 13/10/2016 13:05, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> ::/0   :: !n   -1  1   137
>> lo
>>
> 
> I think !n means network unreachable. 

Sure. But that's the Ethernet interface which isn't connected, so that's 
correct.
The problem is the complete absence of a default route for the working (WiFi)
interface.

>Please provide the output of "ip -6
> route".

It's very unenlightening. The full table from "route" is more use.
But what it says (before I install the correct default route) is

fd00::/64 via fe80::be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39 dev wlp2s0  proto ra  metric 600  pref 
medium
fe80::/64 dev wlp2s0  proto kernel  metric 256  pref medium

No default, as you can see.

   Brian

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

2016-10-12 Thread Lorenzo Colitti 
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's broken, is all.
>

"ip -6 route show" or it didn't happen.

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

2016-10-12 Thread Brian E Carpenter 
Hi Jeroen,
On 13/10/2016 12:16, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2016-10-13 00:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> [..]
>> Kernel IPv6 routing table
>> DestinationNext Hop   Flag Met Ref Use If
>> fd00::/64  fe80::be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39  UG   600 112 
>> wlp2s0
>> fe80::/64  :: U256 0 0 
>> wlp2s0
>> ::/0   :: !n   -1  1   137 lo
>> ::1/128:: Un   0   3 7 lo
>> fd00::c5bb:40f2:f3d5:94e4/128  :: Un   0   319 lo
>> fe80::9051:543a:4c9e:e93e/128  :: Un   0   211 lo
>> ff00::/8   :: U256 2  1763 
>> wlp2s0
>> ::/0   :: !n   -1  1   137 lo
> 
> Do you receive those prefixes over RA or manual config?

RA of course

> Is forwarding enabled? 

No

> What does the ra_accept sysctl say?

accept_ra = 1

> 
> Also 'ip -6 ro get ' can be very useful to check where the
> routing table thinks packets are supposed to go.

Well, once I create the default route it tells me exactly what it should,
for any global-scope address. But after reboot it says "unreachable"
for any address outside the ULA /64 (i.e. even the rest of the ULA /48
is unreachable).

It's broken, is all.

   Brian


> 
> In general on a Linux install from the last decade or so, avoid
> 'netstat' and 'ifconfig' and use iproute: 'ip ro sho' or 'ip -6 ro sho',
> 'ip -6 addr show'
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
> 
>

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

2016-10-12 Thread Jeroen Massar 
On 2016-10-13 02:05, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> > wrote:
> 
> ::/0   :: !n   -1 
> 1   137 lo
> 
> 
> I think !n means network unreachable. Please provide the output of "ip
> -6 route".

That is indeed the default unreachable route, basically the root node of
the prefix tree ;)

Hence indeed why one should be using 'ip -6 ro sho' to check for the
actual routes, netstat output is just odd.

If only the system was using DHCPv6 eh ;)

Greets,
 Jeroen

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

2016-10-12 Thread Lorenzo Colitti 
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ::/0   :: !n   -1  1   137
> lo
>

I think !n means network unreachable. Please provide the output of "ip -6
route".

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

2016-10-12 Thread Jeroen Massar 
On 2016-10-13 00:51, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
[..]
> Kernel IPv6 routing table
> DestinationNext Hop   Flag Met Ref Use If
> fd00::/64  fe80::be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39  UG   600 112 
> wlp2s0
> fe80::/64  :: U256 0 0 
> wlp2s0
> ::/0   :: !n   -1  1   137 lo
> ::1/128:: Un   0   3 7 lo
> fd00::c5bb:40f2:f3d5:94e4/128  :: Un   0   319 lo
> fe80::9051:543a:4c9e:e93e/128  :: Un   0   211 lo
> ff00::/8   :: U256 2  1763 
> wlp2s0
> ::/0   :: !n   -1  1   137 lo

Do you receive those prefixes over RA or manual config?
Is forwarding enabled? What does the ra_accept sysctl say?

Also 'ip -6 ro get ' can be very useful to check where the
routing table thinks packets are supposed to go.

In general on a Linux install from the last decade or so, avoid
'netstat' and 'ifconfig' and use iproute: 'ip ro sho' or 'ip -6 ro sho',
'ip -6 addr show'

Greets,
 Jeroen