Bug 476974
Summary: | DHCPv6 client doesn't form the DHCP REQUEST packets properly | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | Reporter: | Adam Stokes <astokes> | ||||
Component: | dhcpv6 | Assignee: | Jiri Popelka <jpopelka> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Alexander Todorov <atodorov> | ||||
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | high | ||||||
Version: | 5.3 | CC: | atodorov, bmason, borgan, ctatman, jfeeney, narendra_k, tao, vincew, wwlinuxengineering | ||||
Target Milestone: | rc | ||||||
Target Release: | 5.5 | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | |||||||
: | 498535 (view as bug list) | Environment: | |||||
Last Closed: | 2010-03-30 08:03:15 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: | |||||||
Bug Blocks: | 557926 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Adam Stokes
2008-12-18 12:09:46 UTC
What is the NVR of the dhcpv6 package? Also, why are these comments set to private? NVR - 1.0.10-16, i didn't want the attachments to be made public is all.. sorry Fedora has the latest upstream release of dhcpv6, mostly because I am the upstream for dhcpv6. Latest is 1.1.0. I'm looking through the commit log and cannot find any particular commit where this issue was addressed, but I may skipping over it or it may have been an issue that was fixed when something else was fixed. It's possible this was fixed with the multiple IA option code that was added. At any rate, this report strikes me as a bit odd because dhcpv6 received an enormous amount of QA for 5.3 and underwent DoD IPv6 testing and certification. The fact that a REQUEST packet is invalid from the client strikes me as odd. I looked at your tcpdump logs and was wondering what you were using for the dhcpv6 server. I used Windows Server 2008 DHCPv6 server. Also i believe that the wireshark protocol traces that i have attached show the difference between the REQUEST packets of working version and REQUEST packets of non working version. It looks like this was fixed with the following upstream commits: https://fedorahosted.org/dhcpv6/changeset/95e3fd53cf8487b6426d8f81bfdf9890275cb2e8 https://fedorahosted.org/dhcpv6/changeset/1155a69e9456e5883885175598731ba12de49c05 Is this correct? The test packages appear to have enabled the dhcpv6 client to interoperate properly with Windows. However, the packages may have exposed an issue in the way the client works with the Linux dhcpv6 server. Bug 511323 contains the details, but the short version is that if the server sends a NotOnLink in the REPLY to the client's REQEST, then the client restarts with a SOLICIT, but ignores the ADVERTISE. The client eventually gets an address, but it's not the one sent in any of the ADVERTISE messages. Bug 511323 contains a possible resolution to the issue. Created attachment 358143 [details]
Proposed patch
We've resolved the issue with the NotOnLink errors (DHCPv6 server configuration issue), and verified that the patch in Comment #16 enables the DHCPv6 client to interoperate correctly with both Windows and Linux DHCPv6 servers. Giving this a devel-ack because we have a patch and it has been tested in the field. This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release. 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 therefore 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-2010-0196.html |