Bug 166508

Summary: radvd and dhcpv6 dows not agree on the prefixes
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 Reporter: Jason Vas Dias <jvdias>
Component: dhcpv6Assignee: Jason Vas Dias <jvdias>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 4.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=6167146&forum_id=28420
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: RHBA-2006-0115 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-03-07 18:36:49 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On: 144585    
Bug Blocks: 168429    

Description Jason Vas Dias 2005-08-22 17:14:20 UTC 
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #144585 +++

Description of problem:
(Just copying from the link)

"I manage to get the prefix for the client router which i saw from the 
 debug message, but I didn"t see any modification done to /etc/radvd.conf 
 by the dhcp6c program. I suppose it should modify the range of the 
 available IP addresses according to the assigned prefix." 


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
dhcpv6-0.10-9

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Set up dhcpv6 with correct prefix
2. restart dhcpv6 (server) and radvd
3. start dhcp6c on a client to get address
  
Actual results:
radvd will give you different prefixes than dhcp6

Expected results:
radvd and dhcp6 should agree on what to give the clients

Additional info:
There is also a patch provided on the url mentioned:
 in line 116 of radvd_token.l, 
 
     (before) : if (!strcmp(yytext, dhcp6_if->ifname))
 
     (after)  : if (strcmp(yytext, dhcp6_if->ifname))
Comment 1 Jason Vas Dias 2005-08-22 17:15:27 UTC 
fixed with dhcpv6-0.10-14_EL4
Comment 8 Red Hat Bugzilla 2006-03-07 18:36:49 UTC 
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on the solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2006-0115.html