From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sohny thomas Subject: Re: ipv6: default route for link local address is not added while assigning a address Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:19:09 +0530 Message-ID: <52D3A885.2080107@gmail.com> References: <52D2F201.1090903@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE To: netdev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, davem@davemloft.net, kumuda , hannes@stressinduktion.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52D2F201.1090903@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Friday 10 January 2014 10:46 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:33:08PM +0100, Nicolas Dichtel wrote: >> CC: netdev >> >> Le 10/01/2014 13:20, sohny thomas a =C3=A9crit : >>> Default route for link local address is configured automatically if >>> NETWORKING_IPV6=3Dyes is in ifcfg-eth*. >>> When the route table for the interface is flushed and a new address= is >>> added to >>> the same device with out removing linklocal addr, default route for= link >>> local >>> address has to added by default. >> I would say that removing the link local route but not the link loca= l >> address >> is a configuration problem. >> If you remove a connected route but not the associated address, you = will >> have >> the same problem. > We have some user accessible routes that are essential for IPv6 stack > to work at all. So I don't know if I can agree with that. > > Maybe flush is a bit too aggressive? > Hi , Thank you for the inputs. In the test for ipv6 default address selection , we are testing the rul= e 2 as specified in RFC 6724 If Scope(SA) < Scope(SB): If Scope(SA) < Scope(D), then prefer SB and otherwise prefer SA. Similarly, if Scope(SB) < Scope(SA): If Scope(SB) < Scope(D), then prefer SA and otherwise prefer SB. Test: Check 04: Destination: ff08::2(OS) Candidate Source Addresses: fec0::1(SS) or LLA(LS) Result: fec0::1(SS) Scope(LLA) < Scope(fec0::1): If Scope(LLA) < Scope(ff08::2), yes= ,=20 prefer fec0::1 Now in the test its flushing all the routes and adding an address , which in causes to add route into the routing table including the link local routes. Earlier in 2.6.32 it used to work fine now due to the above mentioned check-in this is not happening Of course we can still just delete a route and add , but even if we delete the link local route, IMHO i think it should update the LLA rout= e when the interface is next added an address or bought up which ever is the case. Regards, Sohny