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

[Vladislav Grishenko]

In spite of fact that dnsmasq send's only on-link prefixes and in absence of
RIO control, let's follow Steven proposal regarding RIO and avoidance of
duplicate routes on Win* platforms.
Please refer patch, it also tides up option length calculating, as used in
other parts of code.

http://wl500g.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/dnsmasq/071-ra-route-info.patch

Best Regards, Vladislav Grishenko

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dnsmasq-discuss [mailto:dnsmasq-discuss-
> bounces at lists.thekelleys.org.uk] On Behalf Of Steven Barth
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:36 PM
> To: Simon Kelley; dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Adding Route Information Option to prefixes
> in RA
> 
> 
> > 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.
> Possibly rare client issues aside if you announce a prefix both using an
on-link
> PIO and a RIO the RIO doesn't do you any good. In the best case it just
adds
> another redundant route for the same /64 in the worst case it confuses
> clients. My personal opinion would be to only send it if you announce the
PIO
> as off-link (don't know if that is configurable in
> dnsmasq) and otherwise just drop the RIO if it would be identical to the
PIO.
> 
> I think it would make more sense to add some kind of option to specify the
> RIO-length for a prefix and only announce the RIO if said RIO length is <
than
> that of the prefix announced in the PIO or just add a generic option which
> let's you add arbitrary RIOs or so.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Steven