On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 06:25:18PM +0100, Denis Fondras wrote: > Hello, > > I am trying to add IPv6 support for pppd(8) (IPv6CP) and I encounter a blocker > when adding a default IPv6 route to PPP peer. > > Feb 23 17:26:45 rt-01 pppd[64071]: Couldn't add IPv6 default route: Network > is unreachable > > Adding the default route from route(8) works when the connection is > established. > > From what I see with route(8), it sends the same route message as pppd(8). > > From `route -v add -inet6 default fe80::ca4c:75ff:fe16:9f00%ppp0` : > > ``` > RTM_ADD: Add Route: len 168, priority 0, table 0, if# 0, pid: 0, seq 1, errno > 0 > flags:<UP,GATEWAY> > fmask: > use: 0 mtu: 0 expire: 0 > locks: inits: > sockaddrs: <DST,GATEWAY,NETMASK> > :: fe80::ca4c:75ff:fe16:9f00%ppp0 default > ``` > > From pppd(8) : > ``` > got message of size 168 on Fri Feb 23 17:26:45 2024 > RTM_ADD: Add Route: len 168, priority 0, table 0, if# 0, pid: 64071, seq 1, > errno 51 > flags:<UP,GATEWAY> > fmask: > use: 0 mtu: 0 expire: 0 > locks: inits: > sockaddrs: <DST,GATEWAY,NETMASK> > :: fe80::ca4c:75ff:fe16:9f00%ppp0 default > ``` > > However `route monitor -inet6` shows that the message is different when using > route(8) : > ``` > got message of size 288 on Fri Feb 23 17:26:22 2024 > RTM_ADD: Add Route: len 288, priority 56, table 0, if# 7, name ppp0, pid: > 53003, seq 1, errno 0 > flags:<UP,GATEWAY,DONE> > fmask: > use: 0 mtu: 0 expire: 0 > locks: inits: > sockaddrs: <DST,GATEWAY,NETMASK,IFP,IFA,BRD> > :: fe80::ca4c:75ff:fe16:9f00%ppp0 :: ppp0 fe80::d925:b01f:db25:b020%ppp0 > fe80::ca4c:75ff:fe16:9f00%ppp0 > ``` > > Should I also send the IFP, IFA and BRD sockaddrs from pppd(8) ?
Don't think so. > How comes message sent from route(8) have more attributes when received by > monitor ? The kernel fills those in. Make sure you encode the IPv6 link local address correctly. The stupid kame hack will hunt you. -- :wq Claudio
