Bug 250921
| Summary: | Add a config option for ifup-ipv6 to prefer autoconfigured IPv6 addresses to manually-assigned ones | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Russell Odom <russ+bugzilla-redhat> |
| Component: | initscripts | Assignee: | Bill Nottingham <notting> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 13 | CC: | cra, pb, pekkas, rvokal, triage |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature, Reopened, Triaged |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | bzcl34nup | ||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2011-06-27 13:54:58 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: | |||
|
Description
Russell Odom
2007-08-05 09:09:04 UTC
Can you check, whether always the last address in list is used? Perhaps the problem is related to: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199862 BTW: which kernel do you use? I think it's the address assigned *first* (with the correct scope) that gets used - but I'm not sure now! I can't see any relationship between the order they're added and the order they're listed by "ifconfig eth0" either. I agree, this problem is definitely related to bug 199862; I think combining the two gives us this order of preference for choosing the outgoing address, which handles all the scenarios I can think of for making outbound connections from a specific/random address as desired, without the need for an additional IPV6_AUTOCONF_PREFER setting as I suggested earlier... 1) The primary address from IPV6ADDR, if the scope is correct 2) An auto-generated address, if one is found with the correct scope 3) An address from IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES with the correct scope I think we should duplicate this bug to bug 199862 with a note to that effect - would you agree? I am currently running: Linux detritus.local 2.6.20-1.2948.fc6 #1 SMP Fri Apr 27 19:18:54 EDT 2007 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Yes, this was my same experience. "ip addr add..." adds IPv6 addresses in a for me strange stack order, means last added one occurs as first one in list and will be used as default for outgoing connections. Tested on RHEL5 today. So my note in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250921#c1 was a little bit wrong, the *first* in the "ip addr -6" list is used, usually the last one in the IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES variable. @Pekka: is there a way to prefer existing addresses? Otherwise we have to detect & remove the autogenerated one and add it at last one to become the first in list again. I tried to extend the scripts, result is: CANTFIX
Reason: mix of autogenerated addresses via receiving router advertisements and
static addresses results in an unpredictable list. It's e.g. not possible to
prefer a manual IPv6 address during interface restart, because RA is received
later resulting in generation of the automatic address.
We can now discuss, whether we should disable accepting router advertisements at
all, if a manual address is given - this can be done by an easy patch (one line):
@@ -251,6 +252,7 @@
# Setup IPv6 address on specified interface
if [ -n "$IPV6ADDR" ]; then
ipv6_add_addr_on_device $DEVICE $IPV6ADDR || exit 1
+ IPV6_AUTOCONF="no"
fi
# Get current global IPv6 forwarding
AFAIK, there is no way to prefer one address of an interface over another, though MIPv6 framework (merged in 2.6.21 or thereabouts) includes a way to do that, at least partially. But I don't think it's applicable here. I suppose IPV6_AUTOCONF could work (provided it will still set a default route even if no addresses are configured), but that might occur too late in the process as well -- autoconf on a device would need to be disabled before it's brought back. @Pekka: regarding your second comment, you're probably right, but should be solvable, too with a similar solution used for tempaddr toggle (in the pre-step). I hope, "accept_ra" will only control creation of autoconf address, on at least 2.6.22, following toggles are existing: net.ipv6.conf.eth0.accept_ra = 1 net.ipv6.conf.eth0.accept_ra_defrtr = 1 net.ipv6.conf.eth0.accept_ra_pinfo = 1 net.ipv6.conf.eth0.accept_ra_rtr_pref = 1 net.ipv6.conf.eth0.accept_ra_rt_info_max_plen = 0 Fedora apologizes that these issues have not been resolved yet. We're sorry it's taken so long for your bug to be properly triaged and acted on. We appreciate the time you took to report this issue and want to make sure no important bugs slip through the cracks. If you're currently running a version of Fedora Core between 1 and 6, please note that Fedora no longer maintains these releases. We strongly encourage you to upgrade to a current Fedora release. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer maintained and closing them. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LifeCycle/EOL If this bug is still open against Fedora Core 1 through 6, thirty days from now, it will be closed 'WONTFIX'. If you can reporduce this bug in the latest Fedora version, please change to the respective version. If you are unable to do this, please add a comment to this bug requesting the change. Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled these issues to this point. The process we are following is outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp We will be following the process here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this doesn't happen again. And if you'd like to join the bug triage team to help make things better, check out http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers Issue still exists on F8 with kernel 2.6.24.3-48.fc8 @Reporter: please update version to 8 This message is a reminder that Fedora 8 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 8. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '8'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 8's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 8 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping This message is a reminder that Fedora 10 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 10. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '10'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 10's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 10 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping I think this is still an issue with 12. This message is a reminder that Fedora 12 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 12. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '12'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 12's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 12 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping Fedora 12 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2010-12-02. Fedora 12 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. Sorry for delay, confirming this still exists in F13. This message is a reminder that Fedora 13 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 13. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '13'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 13's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 13 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping Fedora 13 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2011-06-25. Fedora 13 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |