So after looking into this more, I think an off-link prefix isn't the
right way to do this. It looks like
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4191 is the standard for doing
what I want, but dnsmasq doesn't support it, and Linux's
accept_ra_rt_info_max_plen sysctl defaults to not accepting it. I guess
I'll configure static routes on the clients.
Op 22-10-2021 om 18:32 schreef David Mandelberg via Dnsmasq-discuss:
Hi,
I'm trying to configure interfaces where dnsmasq offers addresses
(DHCPv4, SLAAC, and DHCPv6), on-link prefixes (DHCPv4 and RA), and
routes via itself to off-link prefixes, but no default routes.
For DHCPv4, I've got this (not yet tested):
dhcp-option=tag:routesLocal,option:router
dhcp-option=tag:routesLocal,option:classless-static-route,10.0.0.0/8,0.0.0.0
dhcp-range=set:routesLocal,10.X.Y.Z,10.U.V.W
For DHCPv6/RA, I've got this:
enable-ra
ra-param=infra,0,0
dhcp-range=tag:routesLocal,fdXX:XXXX:XXXX::,off-link,48
dhcp-range=set:routesLocal,fdXX:XXXX:XXXX:YYYY::100,fdXX:XXXX:XXXX:YYYY::1ff,slaac
dhcp-range=set:routesLocal,::,constructor:infra,slaac
And I'm getting this error from the off-link line:
prefix length must be at least 64 at line 49 of /etc/dnsmasq.conf
So my questions are: Is off-link the right way to advertise an IPv6
prefix that should be routed via the host dnsmasq is running on? If it
is, why is it restricted to length 64 or greater? I understand why
on-link prefixes shouldn't be too short, but doesn't this just affect
the routing table, which can handle shorter prefixes?
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
_______________________________________________
Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
Dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk
https://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
