[Dnsmasq-discuss] DHCPv6-Stateless server without sending RA

[Shixiong Shang]

Hi, Simon:

Is it possible that we can launch dnsmasq as DHCPv6 Stateless server WITHOUT sending RA? I tried the following configuration, but I still saw RA initiated from dnsmasq even “—enable-ra” was omitted.

nobody   16448     1  0 23:57 ?        00:00:00 dnsmasq --no-hosts --no-resolv --strict-order --bind-interfaces --leasefile-ro --port=0 --dhcp-range=set:tag1,2001:db8:2::,ra-stateless,86400s --dhcp-optsfile=/var/lib/app/dhcp/46317bbc-3433-4549-874e-e5fce2344552/opts --interface=qr-8bea4d00-4e --listen-address=2001:db8:2::1 --pid-file=/var/lib/app/dhcp/46317bbc-3433-4549-874e-e5fce2344552/ipv6pid

00:28:28.802449 IP6 (class 0xc0, hlim 255, next-header ICMPv6 (58) payload length: 112) fe80::f816:3eff:fe97:7523 > ff02::1: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, router advertisement, length 112
	hop limit 64, Flags [other stateful], pref medium, router lifetime 1800s, reachable time 0s, retrans time 0s
	  prefix info option (3), length 32 (4): 2001:db8:2::/64, Flags [onlink, auto], valid time 86400s, pref. time 86400s
	    0x0000:  40c0 0001 5180 0001 5180 0000 0000 2001
	    0x0010:  0db8 0002 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
	  mtu option (5), length 8 (1):  1500
	    0x0000:  0000 0000 05dc
	  source link-address option (1), length 8 (1): fa:16:3e:97:75:23
	    0x0000:  fa16 3e97 7523
	  dnssl option (31), length 24 (3):  lifetime 86400s, domain(s): sandbox.com.
	    0x0000:  0000 0001 5180 0773 616e 6462 6f78 0363
	    0x0010:  6f6d 0000 0000
	  rdnss option (25), length 24 (3):  lifetime 86400s, addr: 2001:4860:4860::8888
	    0x0000:  0000 0001 5180 2001 4860 4860 0000 0000
	    0x0010:  0000 0000 8888


In the previous thread, you mention that there is no separate control for RA announcement. So I am wondering whether it is doable. The use case I am dealing with is that, RA will be announced by physical router on the same wire and VM will retrieve optional info from dnsmasq.

If RA cannot be suppressed, then I am thinking the only option left is to set the RA priority to LOW so physical router’s RA can be preferred….What do you think?

Thanks in advance!

Shixiong
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20140201/fed8a06b/attachment-0001.html>