[Dnsmasq-discuss] Adding Route Information Option to prefixes in RA

Ilya Ponetaev iponetaev at dlink.ru
Thu Sep 11 07:44:53 BST 2014


Yes, due to new information IMHO it's better to revert RIO till 
extensive testing and reworking. Maybe it should be implemented with 
additional config-file option to toggle on and explicitly set prefix to 
be sent in RIO.

On 09/11/2014 01:15 AM, Simon Kelley wrote:
> On 10/09/14 15:41, Steven Barth wrote:
>
>> Since this should only happen when RIO and PIO are both /64 (and on-link
>> flag is set for the PIO) my work-around in OpenWrt was to simply not
>> send the RIO when PIO and RIO would be identical which solved the
>> problem for the user. Obviously if RIO and PIO have different sizes this
>> shouldn't matter.
>>
>>
>> As a side note: since afaik Windows is about the only system to support
>> and enable RIOs by default and Linux kernel-defaults are to ignore RIOs
>> with prefix-length != 0 and Apple not implementing RIO support at all we
>> could get in more trouble once more platforms enable RIO-handling by
>> default and maybe emitting the same behavior as this host. I didn't
>> bother to search the RFCs for what is the correct behaviour in case
>> identical RIOs and PIOs exist.
>>
>>
>
> Focusing on the current dnsmasq code, I guess the take-home message here
> is that we're probably better off to revert the code which adds RIOs,
> for now, as the only RIOs we're sending are exactly the ones which
> Steven suggests should be suppressed. Should probably re-visit the issue
> of more general support for RIO in the next release.
>
> Is that reasonable?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Simon.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
>

-- 
Best regards,
Ilya Ponetaev
D-Link Corp.



More information about the Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list