From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: How is IPv6 dhcp supposed to work? Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 07:49:38 -0700 Message-ID: <53A1A702.1020300@candelatech.com> References: <53A0B617.6070600@candelatech.com> <1403044471.16272.20.camel@dcbw.local> <53A0CC31.6090707@candelatech.com> <87ha3isdu6.fsf@nemi.mork.no> <1403098990.2266.13.camel@dcbw.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDuHJuIE1vcms=?= , netdev To: Dan Williams Return-path: Received: from mail2.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.173]:53286 "EHLO mail2.candelatech.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750936AbaFROtj (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 10:49:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1403098990.2266.13.camel@dcbw.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: After more printk debugging, it seems it is failing to accept the RA due to ipv6_chk_addr failing in the ndisc_router_discovery method. This is probably because one interface on my system is running radvd (on one side of a veth pair), and the peer veth is supposed to be accepting the ra. The chk_addr is checking if the source addr for the RA is not found locally, as far as I can tell, but in my case, it is local, and it still should be accepted. My case is a bit special (I'm doing virtual network type things), but maybe there is a more useful reason to allow this restriction to be relaxed with yet another sysctl? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com