Bug 598439 - Server sends NotOnLink status in Reply when more range statements configured
Server sends NotOnLink status in Reply when more range statements configured
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: dhcpv6 (Show other bugs)
All Linux
low Severity medium
: rc
: ---
Assigned To: Jiri Popelka
Release Test Team
Depends On:
Blocks: 511323
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2010-06-01 08:13 EDT by Jiri Popelka
Modified: 2011-01-13 17:30 EST (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2011-01-13 17:30:28 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Patch that fixes setting of status code in Reply (1.32 KB, patch)
2010-06-01 08:13 EDT, Jiri Popelka
no flags Details | Diff
corrected patch (1.26 KB, patch)
2010-10-25 07:30 EDT, Jiri Popelka
no flags Details | Diff

  None (edit)
Description Jiri Popelka 2010-06-01 08:13:07 EDT
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

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

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 07:30:03 EDT
Created attachment 455513 [details]
corrected patch

The original patch was not correct. I have just committed this patch.
Comment 5 errata-xmlrpc 2011-01-13 17:30:28 EST
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.


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