Subject: Re: ipv6 source address selection in addrconf.c (2.6.17)

From: Lukasz Stelmach <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 13:04:17 +0200

YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
> In article <[email-masked]> (at Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:57:56 +0200), Lukasz Stelmach <[email-masked]> says:
> 
>> Lukasz Stelmach wrote:
>>> Lukasz Stelmach wrote:
[....]
>>
>> fd24:6f44:46bd:face:EUI64 fd24:6f44:46bd:face:RANDOM
>> and
>> 2002:531f:d667:face:EUI64 2002:531f:d667:face::RANDOM
>>
>> there seem to be no way to prefere 2002:: over fc00:: in rule 7 and it will be
>> selected as long as it is before 2002:: on the list. I can see here that an
>> implicit assumption has been made that an interface either is multihomed or
>> "private". The seventh rule should not IMHO break the whole process of
>> selection but rather mark as selectable all "private" (random) addresses. And
>> it should rather be done before rule 6.
> 
> Hmm? We do not have such intention.
> In above case, when you connect to 2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085,
> either 2002:531f:d667:face:EUI64 or 2002:531f:d667:face::RANDOM
> should be selected (depending on if use_tempaddr >= 2),
> by the longest matching rule (Rule 8).

I've chewd the code line by line and it tastes like it should work the way you
say... OK I see the problem. I've used ifconfig which doesn't show
"deprecated" flag and "valid"/"prefered" times which, combined with "privacy",
*seem* to cause some problems . I don't know yet if it is a problem of proper
intervals in radvd.conf or is there still a bug in kernel. I'll let you know
when I learn it.

OK. That's enough for now. Let me get back to the real work ;-)

Best regards.
-- 
Było mi bardzo miło.                    Czwarta pospolita klęska, [...]
>Łukasz<                      Już nie katolicka lecz złodziejska.  (c)PP