Re: [PATCH 3/3] net: fix ipv6 routing

[Andrei Borzenkov]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Josef Bacik <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 08/09/2015 10:58 AM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
>>
>> В Wed, 5 Aug 2015 14:36:39 -0400
>> Josef Bacik <address@hidden> пишет:
>>
>>> Currently we cannot talk to ipv6 addresses outside of our local link area
>>> because we don't setup our routes properly nor do we talk to the router
>>> properly.  Currently net_ipv6_autoconf adds routes for the local link
>>> prefix and
>>> ties it to the global link device.  This isn't helpful at all, we
>>> completely
>>> drop the router part of the router advertisement.  So instead create a
>>> "default
>>> route" flag in routes and create a new route with the local link prefix
>>> and the
>>> router source address.
>>>
>>
>> Note that RA does not always mean default route. You need to check
>> router lifetime to decide whether to use it as default route.
>
>
> I've been reading the spec a lot recently and I couldn't figure out a way to
> differentiate between a default route and just another route.

Probably I was not clear. You should not use RA to add *any* route
unless it claims to offer one. Your patch did not check for it.
"Default" was wrong here, I did not mean to distinguish between
different types of routes (actually, I am not sure if SLAAC can add
default route in usual sense).


>
> Eesh I just ripped that out didn't I?  Sorry about that, I'll rework this
> again.  I think I'll do like you said above, just kind of create an
> interface with different scopes and that way if you use both slaac and dhcp
> and get the same address we don't end up with two different interfaces.  And
> then I'll come up with something to tie the routers to the interfaces and
> rework the route stuff so it is a bit cleaner.  This will probably be
> towards the end of the week, I've found some weird timeout problem in the
> TCP stack I'm trying to track down, once I've figured that out I'll rework
> this patch.  Thanks,
>

Thank you for working on it!