Differential D31868
routing: fix source address selection rules for IPv4 over IPv6. Authored by melifaro on Sep 6 2021, 10:28 PM. Tags None Referenced Files
Details Current logic always selects an IFA of the same family from the Create a separate rt_getifa_family() to handle entire ifa selection Without the change: 22:29 [0] m@devel2 ifconfig vtnet0: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500 options=4c04bb<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,JUMBO_MTU,VLAN_HWCSUM,LRO,VLAN_HWTSO,LINKSTATE,TXCSUM_IPV6> ether 52:54:00:14:e3:19 inet6 fe80::5054:ff:fe14:e319%vtnet0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet6 2a01:4f8:13a:70c:ffff::8 prefixlen 96 media: Ethernet autoselect (10Gbase-T <full-duplex>) status: active nd6 options=21<PERFORMNUD,AUTO_LINKLOCAL> 22:30 [0] m@devel2 s route add default -inet6 2a01:4f8:13a:70c:ffff::1 22:30 [0] m@devel2 netstat -4rnW Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Nhop# Mtu Netif Expire default 2a01:4f8:13a:70c:ffff::1 UGS 3 1500 vtnet0 10.199.199.190 link#2 UH 2 16384 lo0 127.0.0.1 link#2 UH 1 16384 lo0 22:30 [0] m@devel2 netstat -4onW Nexthop data Internet: Idx Type IFA Gateway Flags Use Mtu Netif Addrif Refcnt Prepend 1 v4/resolve 127.0.0.1 lo0/resolve H 0 16384 lo0 2 2 v4/resolve 10.199.199.190 lo0/resolve H 0 16384 lo0 2 3 v4/gw 2a01:4f8:13a:70c:ffff::8 2a01:4f8:13a:70c:ffff::1 GS 0 1500 vtnet0 2 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ After the change: 22:35 [0] m@devel2 netstat -4rnW Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Nhop# Mtu Netif Expire default 2a01:4f8:13a:70c:ffff::1 UGS 3 1500 vtnet0 10.199.199.190 link#2 UH 2 16384 lo0 127.0.0.1 link#2 UH 1 16384 lo0 22:35 [0] m@devel2 netstat -4onW Nexthop data Internet: Idx Type IFA Gateway Flags Use Mtu Netif Addrif Refcnt Prepend 1 v4/resolve 127.0.0.1 lo0/resolve H 0 16384 lo0 2 2 v4/resolve 10.199.199.190 lo0/resolve H 0 16384 lo0 2 3 v4/gw 10.199.199.190 2a01:4f8:13a:70c:ffff::1 GS 0 1500 vtnet0 2 22:35 [0] m@devel2
Diff Detail
Event TimelineComment Actions I'm still investing on this issue. As the following case
we can treat them as Unnumbered, and for routers there's https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1812#section-2.2.7, claiming router-id should be used. As for end hosts, I have not found any RFCs specifying it. Any thoughts ? @melifaro Comment Actions Hi, |