* IPv6 unique local address flushes on up/down @ 2008-03-25 14:57 Chr 2008-03-25 15:11 ` Denis V. Lunev 2008-03-25 15:24 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Chr @ 2008-03-25 14:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: hostap; +Cc: netdev Hi, I have a problem with hostapd & IPv6... as you might know, or not... hostapd needs to initialize the interface (e.g it changes it to master/accesspoint mode, which can only be done if the interface is down)... However if the interface is brought down & up again (e.g whenever hostap starts or restarts)... the IPv6 logic flushes the unique-local ipv6 address that I gave it (by hand) with ip addr add fddb:xyz...::1//64 dev ath0 in /etc/network/interfaces ifup script (-probably debian specific-). And that's bad, because bind9,ISC dhcp-server v4.1 and racoon(IPsec/VPN) needs a static address for their records/lease database and configuration... This wasn't problem with the old IPv4... because there the 10.x.y.z or 192.168.a.b addresses aren't deleted when the interface was _reinitialized_ by the hostap... Now my question, which _one_ should we fix the applications or the stack?! I think the network stack, but I don't know if there are RFC about this issue... or is there already some flag/setting which I've missed so far? Regards, Christian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: IPv6 unique local address flushes on up/down 2008-03-25 14:57 IPv6 unique local address flushes on up/down Chr @ 2008-03-25 15:11 ` Denis V. Lunev 2008-03-25 15:24 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Denis V. Lunev @ 2008-03-25 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chr; +Cc: hostap, netdev On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 15:57 +0100, Chr wrote: > Hi, > > I have a problem with hostapd & IPv6... > > as you might know, or not... hostapd needs to initialize > the interface (e.g it changes it to master/accesspoint mode, > which can only be done if the interface is down)... > > However if the interface is brought down & up again (e.g whenever > hostap starts or restarts)... the IPv6 logic flushes the unique-local ipv6 > address that I gave it (by hand) with ip addr add fddb:xyz...::1//64 dev ath0 > in /etc/network/interfaces ifup script (-probably debian specific-). > > And that's bad, because bind9,ISC dhcp-server v4.1 and racoon(IPsec/VPN) > needs a static address for their records/lease database and configuration... > > This wasn't problem with the old IPv4... because there the > 10.x.y.z or 192.168.a.b addresses aren't deleted when the interface > was _reinitialized_ by the hostap... > > Now my question, which _one_ should we fix the applications or the stack?! > I think the network stack, but I don't know if there are RFC about this > issue... or is there already some flag/setting which I've missed so far? On interface down IPv6 stack unconditionally deletes all addresses from the interface in the addrconf_ifdown routine. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: IPv6 unique local address flushes on up/down 2008-03-25 14:57 IPv6 unique local address flushes on up/down Chr 2008-03-25 15:11 ` Denis V. Lunev @ 2008-03-25 15:24 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 2008-03-25 16:07 ` Chr 1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 @ 2008-03-25 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: chunkeey; +Cc: hostap, netdev, yoshfuji In article <200803251557.21563.chunkeey@web.de> (at Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:57:21 +0100), Chr <chunkeey@web.de> says: > Now my question, which _one_ should we fix the applications or the stack?! > I think the network stack, but I don't know if there are RFC about this > issue... or is there already some flag/setting which I've missed so far? Well..., in fact, this is known as an uneasy-to-fix issue. The behavior han not been changed for long time, so you definately need to have work-around for this issue, anyway. >From specification point of view, we need to re-perform DAD (duplicate address detection) after down-up cycle or even link-down and up. One possible way is to add "tentative" flag for static addresses (instead of purging them) when the interface is going down and reperform DAD for all of such addresses when the interface is coming up. If the link is being down, we might want to use "Optimistic" DAD instead. --yoshfuji ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: IPv6 unique local address flushes on up/down 2008-03-25 15:24 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 @ 2008-03-25 16:07 ` Chr 2008-03-25 16:20 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Chr @ 2008-03-25 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 Cc: hostap, netdev, chunkeey On Tuesday 25 March 2008 16:24:28 YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote: > In article <200803251557.21563.chunkeey@web.de> (at Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:57:21 +0100), Chr <chunkeey@web.de> says: > > Now my question, which _one_ should we fix the applications or the > > stack?! I think the network stack, but I don't know if there are RFC > > about this issue... or is there already some flag/setting which I've > > missed so far? > > Well..., in fact, this is known as an uneasy-to-fix issue. > The behavior han not been changed for long time, so you definately > need to have work-around for this issue, anyway. > > From specification point of view, we need to re-perform DAD (duplicate > address detection) after down-up cycle or even link-down and up. > One possible way is to add "tentative" flag for static addresses > (instead of purging them) when the interface is going down and > reperform DAD for all of such addresses when the interface is coming up. > If the link is being down, we might want to use "Optimistic" DAD instead. > Ah yeah, ok... I guess... alright! ... but another question, about this issue form the userspace side. Since I'm going to use the stateful DHCPv6 way... I'm wondering how I can set the tentative flag from userspace? Because the DHCPv6 Client uses the ip utility to add the ipv6 address too. And unlike the _static_ setting for the router, this _stateful_ autoconf-address should be flushed on ifup/down, right? And according to the manual page of my iproute (debian sid - from 2008-01-08). the ip utility doesn't have this "set flag xy for address zw" capability at all... so how can I _possibly_ set it, or prevent from being set? Or do I miss some good and obvious point here again?! Regards, Christian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: IPv6 unique local address flushes on up/down 2008-03-25 16:07 ` Chr @ 2008-03-25 16:20 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 2008-03-25 17:16 ` Chr 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 @ 2008-03-25 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: chunkeey; +Cc: hostap, netdev, yoshfuji In article <200803251707.52528.chunkeey@web.de> (at Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:07:52 +0100), Chr <chunkeey@web.de> says: > On Tuesday 25 March 2008 16:24:28 YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote: > > In article <200803251557.21563.chunkeey@web.de> (at Tue, 25 Mar 2008 > 15:57:21 +0100), Chr <chunkeey@web.de> says: > > > Now my question, which _one_ should we fix the applications or the > > > stack?! I think the network stack, but I don't know if there are RFC > > > about this issue... or is there already some flag/setting which I've > > > missed so far? > > > > Well..., in fact, this is known as an uneasy-to-fix issue. > > The behavior han not been changed for long time, so you definately > > need to have work-around for this issue, anyway. > > > > From specification point of view, we need to re-perform DAD (duplicate > > address detection) after down-up cycle or even link-down and up. > > One possible way is to add "tentative" flag for static addresses > > (instead of purging them) when the interface is going down and > > reperform DAD for all of such addresses when the interface is coming up. > > If the link is being down, we might want to use "Optimistic" DAD instead. > > > Ah yeah, ok... I guess... alright! ... > > but another question, about this issue form the userspace side. > > Since I'm going to use the stateful DHCPv6 way... I'm wondering how I can set > the tentative flag from userspace? : Tentative flag cannot be set from userspace. So, if we're going this way, we might need new flag for "admin" or "static" or something alike for manual / static addresses (including link-local addresses, probably). --yoshfuji ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: IPv6 unique local address flushes on up/down 2008-03-25 16:20 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 @ 2008-03-25 17:16 ` Chr 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Chr @ 2008-03-25 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明; +Cc: hostap, netdev On Tuesday 25 March 2008 17:20:39 YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote: > In article <200803251707.52528.chunkeey@web.de> (at Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:07:52 +0100), Chr <chunkeey@web.de> says: > > On Tuesday 25 March 2008 16:24:28 YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote: > > > In article <200803251557.21563.chunkeey@web.de> (at Tue, 25 Mar 2008 > > > > 15:57:21 +0100), Chr <chunkeey@web.de> says: > > > > Now my question, which _one_ should we fix the applications or the > > > > stack?! I think the network stack, but I don't know if there are RFC > > > > about this issue... or is there already some flag/setting which I've > > > > missed so far? > > > > > > Well..., in fact, this is known as an uneasy-to-fix issue. > > > The behavior han not been changed for long time, so you definately > > > need to have work-around for this issue, anyway. > > > > > > From specification point of view, we need to re-perform DAD (duplicate > > > address detection) after down-up cycle or even link-down and up. > > > One possible way is to add "tentative" flag for static addresses > > > (instead of purging them) when the interface is going down and > > > reperform DAD for all of such addresses when the interface is coming > > > up. If the link is being down, we might want to use "Optimistic" DAD > > > instead. > > > > Ah yeah, ok... I guess... alright! ... > > > > but another question, about this issue form the userspace side. > > > > Since I'm going to use the stateful DHCPv6 way... I'm wondering how I can > > set the tentative flag from userspace? > > Tentative flag cannot be set from userspace. > So, if we're going this way, we might need new flag for "admin" or > "static" or something alike for manual / static addresses > (including link-local addresses, probably). > > --yoshfuji ok, this is a blocker... so, what about a "static flag" per interface instead of per addresses (maybe add something like /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/ethX/address_flush). So that on the first initialization of the interface (modprobe time) we create always generate a link-local address (like now)... But then on every down/up cycle we check the _new_ static flag. if it is not set then we do the _old_ behaviour... (flushing everything) and if it is set we just leave everything in place.... (and on "up", we just use the old link-local again instead of making a new one) Will this work? or are there some pitfalls with this approach? Regards, Christian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-03-25 17:18 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2008-03-25 14:57 IPv6 unique local address flushes on up/down Chr 2008-03-25 15:11 ` Denis V. Lunev 2008-03-25 15:24 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 2008-03-25 16:07 ` Chr 2008-03-25 16:20 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 2008-03-25 17:16 ` Chr
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).