Bug 598439

Summary: Server sends NotOnLink status in Reply when more range statements configured
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 Reporter: Jiri Popelka <jpopelka>
Component: dhcpv6Assignee: Jiri Popelka <jpopelka>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Release Test Team <release-test-team-automation>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 5.5CC: bmason, borgan, mganisin, ovasik
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-01-13 22:30:28 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: 511323    
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch that fixes setting of status code in Reply
none
corrected patch none

Description Jiri Popelka 2010-06-01 12:13:07 UTC 
Created attachment 418610 [details]
Patch that fixes setting of status code in Reply

Description of problem:
When we define more than one 'range' statement in dhcp6s.conf,
e.g. like stated in dhcp6s.conf(5) man page

interface eth1 {
        link AAA {
                range 3ffe:ffff:100::10 to 3ffe:ffff:100::110/64;
                prefix 3ffe:ffef:104::/64;
                pool {
                        range fec0:ffff::10 to fec0:ffff::110/64;
                        prefix fec0:fffe::/48;
                };
        };
};

server always sends NotOnLink status in Reply message.
That forces the client to restart the DHCP server discovery process.

This bug looks serious but actually it's not a big deal,
because his fellow bug #511323 backs him.
Because of bug #511323 client eventually get his IP addresses,
but in a 'non-correct' way.

To see in more detail how this all works see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511323#c1

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
dhcpv6-1.0.10-18.el5

Additional info:
There's no impact on any customer reported,
so I'm not sure whether we want this to have fixed.
Risk regressions for bug, which teases nobody ?
I suggest to leave this bug and bug #511323 be
until there's some customer who wants this to have fixed.
Comment 2 Jiri Popelka 2010-10-25 11:30:03 UTC 
Created attachment 455513 [details]
corrected patch

The original patch was not correct. I have just committed this patch.
http://post-office.corp.redhat.com/archives/cvs-commits-list/2010-October/msg02321.html
Comment 5 errata-xmlrpc 2011-01-13 22:30:28 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 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-2011-0034.html