On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 16:58 -0500, Pavel Simerda wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Joakim Langlet" <joakim.lang...@seaview.se> > > > > Pavel and Dan, > > Thank you for your answers. It makes it a lot easier for me to > > understand the problems I have with Ubuntu 12.04 and also Debian > > Wheezy RC-1 currently. > > No problem, feel free to ask more questions. > > > I use DHCPv6 for address assignment (nicely serviced by dnsmasq) and > > radvd is used to announce the /96 networks. This all works. I get an > > address and a /96 route, but unfortunately there is also an > > additional route (/64) added. > > Sounds wrong. > > > This additional route screws up routing to other /96 networks (locally). > > Are you sure? A /96 route should always take precedence over a /64 route, as > it is more specific. > > > I ask for your advice, should I consider this additional (bad) route > > being a kernel bug or is it more likely something Debian specific? > > If it is a kernel bug (and I don't think so), then the /64 route is a > kernel-originated route and it will appear even without the DHCP client. If > it only appears when you run DHCP client, it is most likely a bug in the DHCP > client itself. If it appears when DHCP client is run by NetworkManager, it is > more likely a bug in NetworkManager.
And if you're not running NetworkManager, then it's a bug in dhclient-script, or whatever script you're using to apply the DHCP configuration. Again, by default dhclient tells the script to use a /64, which is wrong. Dan > Also, kernel routes tend to have preferred life time and valid lifetime set > (and different from each other). > > > I am prepared to dig into the source to find it.... > > > > It seems like the additional route is added by *default*. It has the > > same prefix as announced by the router, but cut down to /64. > > > > I have a temporary fix for it. I simply look for it in the routing > > table and delete the extra route using script, but it would be nice to > > track down the real reason so that it gets solved. > > Agreed. > > > Again, thanks a lot for your answers on DHCPv6. It all makes much > > more sense now. > > Thanks for your interest. > > Cheers, > > Pavel _______________________________________________ Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
