Bug 598439 - Server sends NotOnLink status in Reply when more range statements configured
Server sends NotOnLink status in Reply when more range statements configured
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: dhcpv6 (Show other bugs)
5.5
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:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-01-13 17:30:28 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
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
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 07:30:03 EDT
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 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.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0034.html

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