Bug 217310 - Race starting dhcp6c from ifup
Race starting dhcp6c from ifup
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4
Classification: Red Hat
Component: initscripts (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Bill Nottingham
Brock Organ
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-11-26 17:32 EST by Matthew Booth
Modified: 2014-03-16 23:04 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-12-09 09:52:38 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Matthew Booth 2006-11-26 17:32:16 EST
Description of problem:
I have ifcfg-foo as follows:

eth0 is an ipw2200 wireless card.

Running 'ifup foo', IPv6 configuration fails with no immediate visible output.
/var/log/messages contains the error:
Nov 26 13:30:11 mbooth dhcp6c[32591]: bind(inbound): Cannot assign requested address

Editing the ifup script to pass the options -fD to dhcp6c gives more:
Determining IP information for eth0... done.
Nov/26/2006 21:14:28 extracted an existing DUID from
/var/lib/dhcpv6/dhcp6c_duid: xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx
Nov/26/2006 21:14:28 link local addr is xxxx::xxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx
Nov/26/2006 21:14:28 res addr is xxxx::xxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx%eth0/28
Nov/26/2006 21:14:28 bind(inbound): Cannot assign requested address

Editing the ifup script to put 'sleep 5' immediately before the dhcp6c resolves
this problem. The 'res addr' used in the successful case is identical to the
unsuccessful case.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Comment 1 David Cantrell 2006-11-27 14:28:16 EST
If a sleep 5 fixes it in the ifup script, I'm ok with that.  The dhcpv6 code is
a mess anyway.  We run ifup-ipv6 before dhcp6c runs and the state changes
involved there are confusing dhcp6c.

If we don't add a sleep 5 to the init script, the script should more gracefully
handle this failure.  I dunno.  Seems like the scripts are the better place to
do this.  Reassigning.
Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2008-12-08 16:53:46 EST
Egads, apologies for the delay. Does this persist on later releases such as 5.2/5.3?
Comment 3 Matthew Booth 2008-12-08 18:08:13 EST
Unfortunately I can't test this any more. Feel free to close it.
Comment 4 Bill Nottingham 2008-12-09 09:52:38 EST
OK, closing. Sorry about that. (We haven't heard other reports of this.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.