From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
To: linux@kolla.no
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: IPv6 autoconf/accept_ra default values
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:46:21 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090223.154621.08279126.davem@davemloft.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0902231319380.14151@halbrend.uninett.no>
From: Kolbjørn Barmen <linux@kolla.no>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:42:41 +0100 (CET)
>
> Hello
>
> 1. Summary of problem
You'll get more replies if you contact the networking developers
at netdev@vger.kernel.org
> autoconfig and accept_ra is by default on (by the way of forwarning) -
> this is very problematic in many ways.
>
> 2. Full description of the problem/report:
>
> * if you want staticly only configured addresses/gateway (which is
> something you just might want for server machines for example) you need
> to change the sysctl parameters before the interface is brought up.
> (yes, I want staticly, and only staticly configured addresses, dont get
> me started on why - keywords: source address, dns, ssl, access control)
>
> * to change the default values, ipv6 module needs to be loaded, in many
> distros this leads to race conditions, especially in these "autodetect
> hardware and bring up everything magically" days :)
>
> * if you netboot with ipv6 enabled kernel, interface will pick up ipv6
> autoconf no matter, so you need to remove addresses and routes manually
> after boot. As far as I know there is now kernel parameters to tell
> kernel to not autoconf ipv6. I admit I have not tested out whether it's
> possible to use ipv6-addresses as kernel parameters at all.
>
> * ipv6 kernel module has no load paramters as far as I can tell?
>
> * changing net.ipv6.conf.all.* and net.ipv6.conf.default.* dont work as
> intended? I'm really not sure how this is meant to work, but intuitively
> I would think that "...all.*" would affect all interfaces present, and
> "...*.default.*" would set the default values for "future" interfaces.
> Maybe I'm wrong? Look further down...
>
> 3. Keywords
> ipv6, forwarding, autoconf, accept_ra
>
> 4. Kernel version (from /proc/version):
> This goes accross all 2.6 kernels as far as I can tell, no matter what
> distro.
>
> 5. Output of Oops.. message
> No oops so far :)
>
> 6. A small shell script or example program which triggers the problem
>
> root:~# sysctl net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra
> net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra = 1
> root:~# sysctl -w net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra=0
> net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra = 0
> root:~# sysctl net.ipv6.conf.eth0.accept_ra
> net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra = 1
>
> I suppose the above is fals behaviour? I'm really not sure, but if this is
> not a bug, then I fail to see the purpose of the "...all.*" and
> "...default.*" sysctl parameters. From the documentation
> (networking/ip-sysctl.txt) I get the impression that the above behaviour
> is wrong:
>
> ---
> conf/default/*:
> Change the interface-specific default settings.
>
> conf/all/*:
> Change all the interface-specific settings.
>
> [XXX: Other special features than forwarding?]
> ---
>
> Looks like this is unclear for more than just me :)
>
>
> My personal oppinion is that anything ipv6 autoconfig/accept_ra should be
> default _off_, since this simplifies all the above mentioned issues, and
> it is incredibly easy to turn on again with systcl if people want it.
> It is much easier to enable ipv6 automagic than to disable it.
> At least there should be kernel/module parameter to set default behaviour.
>
> Part of the problem with deploying IPv6 is due to "magic" like this, all
> the autoconfig/router announcement magic looks very well on paper and in
> theory, but out in the field it quickly leads to loads of totally
> unnecessary extra work, work that could easily be avoided if default
> behaviour was to have it off. It should be in the interest of IPv6
> advocates to support a "soft" transition from IPv4-only to dual-stack,
> fencing off unwanted "magic" only adds to the frustration for those who
> actually try to deploy it.
>
> What do you think?
>
> If there already is a simple stright forward solution, then I apologize
> for this rant - please enlighten me :)
>
> -- kolla
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-23 23:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-23 14:42 Kolbjørn Barmen
2009-02-23 23:46 ` David Miller [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090223.154621.08279126.davem@davemloft.net \
--to=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@kolla.no \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®