Bug 1795957

Summary:	IPv6 RA timeout cannot be set higher than 120 secs
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8	Reporter:	Ales Musil <amusil>
Component:	NetworkManager	Assignee:	sushil kulkarni <sukulkar>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Desktop QE <desktop-qa-list>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	8.2	CC:	acardace, atragler, bgalvani, edwardh, lmiksik, lrintel, mburman, mtessun, rkhan, sukulkar, thaller, vbenes
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	8.0
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	NetworkManager-1.22.6-1.el8	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2020-04-28 16:54:14 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Ales Musil 2020-01-29 10:24:14 UTC

Description of problem:

IPv6 RA timeout is derived from /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/$dev/router_solicitations * /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/$dev/router_solicitation_interval. But is clamped between 30 and 120 secs. 

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
NetworkManager-1.22.0-2.el8.x86_64

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create dummy interface 
1. Set router_solicitations and router_solicitation_interval to 15 for the dummy
2. Enable RA via NetworkManager for the dummy


Actual results:
RA timeout is set for 120 secs

Expected results:
RA timeout 225

Additional info:

Comment 3 Beniamino Galvani 2020-01-30 14:49:25 UTC

https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/commit/d2354387d9cd1f58101c92e0d8a86649507d171e

Comment 4 Beniamino Galvani 2020-01-31 12:47:01 UTC

(In reply to RHEL Program Management from comment #2)

> Answer the following 3 questions:
> 1. What is the scope of harm if this BZ is not resolved in this release? 
> Reviewers want to know which RHEL features or customers are affected and if
> it will impact any Layered Product or Hardware partner plans.

This bug badly impacts RHV as it breaks connectivity for VMs.

> 2. What are the risks associated with resolving this BZ?  Reviewers want to
> know the scope of retesting, potential regressions

The fix is simple and self-contained, it doesn't impact other parts of code except IPv6 RA. We have 900+ tests in CI that covers many features, including IPv6 RA, so the regression risk is very low.

> 3. Provide any other details that meet blocker criteria or should be weighed
> in making a decision (Other releases affected, upstream status, business
> impacts, etc).

The bug is already fixed upstream.

Comment 6 Vladimir Benes 2020-02-12 17:01:36 UTC

solicitation_period_prolonging test added

Comment 8 errata-xmlrpc 2020-04-28 16:54:14 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:1847