On 14/10/2020 20:07, Kimmo Suominen wrote:
> - not interfere with (static) IPv4 configuration

How do you expect
ifconfig_vioif0='dhcp rtsol'
to work?

With recent dhcpcd changes, it is possible to get them working independently of each other, but as it stands right now, you just killed ipv4 running in vioif0.

- only update the IPv6 routing table, not the IPv6 address configuration

This is new behaviour, and this is my objection.
We've never had a knob to instruct the kernel not to apply IPv6 addresses from the RA.

In my view, rtsol means "Solicit a RA, apply it's configuration."
This includes starting DHCP6 based on the O or M flags inside the RA.
Your meaning of rtsol means "Solicit an RA but discard it's configuration and only set a default route to it."

As we have a difference of opinion, I would like to hear the opinions of others.

I also think it is very good that with this change we once again have
backwards compatibility for configuring static network addressing.

We've never lost it.
We've never really had static addressing with an RA router before either.
Looking through the NetBSD-9 sources, if the RA advertises an address you didn't have set, it would install one for you. What it wouldn't do though was adjust the timings of existing addresses, which admitedly dhcpcd would which i suspect is the behaviour you're trying to get to.

If you want static, go full static. Anything else is probably undefined behaviour. This is certainly true with NetBSD-9 kernels handling RA.

My preference for a static address configuration would be to also use
defaultroute6, but since on some of my networks the routers do not
support VRRP v3, I cannot configure an IPv6 address in VRRP to be used
as the default gateway.

And now we get to the real reason.
I don't see why we should overload a generic "rtsol" command to workaround an issue with your network.

Would you object to adding a new command, maybe rtsol_router_only?
This is then very clear as to the behaviour desired.


Reply via email to