Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

On 15/10/2016 00:57, Holger Zuleger wrote: >> If the delegated prefix changes, you'll be simply postponing the local >> communication failure, not prevent it. > Only if the new prefix is different to the old one. > >> The last year has convinced me that the best user experience is >> achieved by

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

On 14.10.2016 15:20, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: >> At the end, the whole behavior is because some host have problems in >> handling situations where they have an IPv6 address configured and now >> internet connectivity. But the solution to this requires that the host >> is able to understand and

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

> At the end, the whole behavior is because some host have problems in > handling situations where they have an IPv6 address configured and now > internet connectivity. But the solution to this requires that the host > is able to understand and work with RIO options, which seams to be "at > the

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

Holger, >>> Imagine a setup with *two* routers. One of them has broken Internet, >>> the other is working. How can the hosts decide if both keep announcing >>> themselves as "I can reach anything"? >> >> in the general case the host still has to take the 'I can reach anything' >> announcement

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

>> Imagine a setup with *two* routers. One of them has broken Internet, >> the other is working. How can the hosts decide if both keep announcing >> themselves as "I can reach anything"? > > in the general case the host still has to take the 'I can reach anything' > announcement with a pinch

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

> If the delegated prefix changes, you'll be simply postponing the local > communication failure, not prevent it. Only if the new prefix is different to the old one. > The last year has convinced me that the best user experience is > achieved by having an in-home stable ULA prefix to complement

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

On 14.10.2016 12:32, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:00:04PM +0200, Holger Zuleger wrote: >> Of course the default route should *not* be withdrawn. >> The RA default router announcement says just, "Hey hosts, I'm the way >> out of your local subnet", and not "Hey host,

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

* Holger Zuleger > Hmm, what's so bad with still using the global prefix until the global > connectivity comes back and the CPE gets a new one? > Than it's early enough to set the preferred time of the former prefix to > 0 and let them time out. > In this way all local

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

Hi, On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 12:00:04PM +0200, Holger Zuleger wrote: > Of course the default route should *not* be withdrawn. > The RA default router announcement says just, "Hey hosts, I'm the way > out of your local subnet", and not "Hey host, I have a upstream > connection to the rest of the

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

I was wrong. Randomly set:  no, manually change possible: yes. The reason for my confusion was "::" versus ":" Sometimes reading ipv6-addresses is hard.

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

>> Great idea, ULAs. > > In the right circumstances, yes, actually. And actually my circumstances > yesterday were right for a ULA prefix: the ISP failed to give my CE a prefix. > Today, they gave me a prefix, and so Linux gives me a default route. Hmm, what's so bad with still using the global

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

Am 13.10.2016 um 21:56 schrieb Brian E Carpenter: On 13/10/2016 21:14, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: Of note is the fact that the ULA prefix being announced is the ubiquitous fd00::/64. 0 is a perfectly random number, just like the ubiquitous PIN code 1234. But yes, this a sloppy job by the

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

On 13/10/2016 21:14, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > Of note is the fact that the ULA prefix being announced is the ubiquitous > fd00::/64. 0 is a perfectly random number, just like the ubiquitous PIN code 1234. But yes, this a sloppy job by the FritzBox. Hopefully they've fixed this in more recent

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

On 2016-10-13 09:36, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Jeroen Massar > >> 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

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

On 2016-10-13 02:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 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

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

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

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

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

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

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

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

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

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

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

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

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

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

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

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

Re: Linux and ULA support and default route

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

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 ::