On Feb 11, 2008 3:22 PM, Pekka Savola <<a href="mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi">pekkas@netcore.fi</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Norman Rasmussen wrote:<br></div><div class="Ih2E3d">> This says that Vista expects unsolicited RA's over it's ppp link:<br>> <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/rrasblog/archive/2006/12/15/vista-how-pppv6-support-works.aspx" target="_blank">http://blogs.technet.com/rrasblog/archive/2006/12/15/vista-how-pppv6-support-works.aspx</a><br>
<br></div>I don't see the word "unsolicited" in this article. As a matter of<br>fact, to the countrary -- in 4) and 5) it says that Vista will send a<br>Router Solicitation, and the router will respond with an RA (i.e., a<br>
solicited advertisement). So "UnicastOnly" should work OK with Vista<br>as well.<br></blockquote><div><br>My mistake, I now have UnicastOnly enabled. I have to send a SIGHUP to radvd in ipv6-up otherwise it doesn't detect the new interface quick enough for Vista to send it's 2 solicitations before giving up.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">AFAIR, radvd will not re-advertise the RA, however, so Vista might<br>forget the prefix/route information transmitted in the original RA<br>
after a while if it doesn't re-send the RS.<br><br>So, while UnicastOnly should work at least initially, there might be<br>problems after the RA's lifetimes expire.<br></blockquote><div><br>Untested, we will see. I have openswan problems that cause the tunnel to collapse after 60 minutes, so I doubt that will be an issue for now.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">On the other hand, you could just try adding BROADCAST and MULTICAST<br>flags on the interface and see if it works, or alternatively just<br>
ignore radvd's warning about possibly needing UnicastOnly (if it's<br>working fine).</blockquote><div><br>I was getting two syslog lines every 10 seconds :-)<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">> I was advertising fe80::/64 and 2001:618:400:6f39::/64. radvd wasn't<br>> transmitting the RA unless I disabled UnicastOnly, then the new 1.1 version<br>> complains when I enabled it, and the interface doesn't support broadcast. I<br>
> need a unsolicited unicast option :-)<br><br></div>I'd remove fe80::/64 because it's ignored on the recipient side<br>anyway. But it's probably not causing problems.<br></blockquote><div><br>blegh, fec0::/64<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Are you saying that with 1.0 there is no complaint but with 1.1 there<br>is? I don't think there were code changes here, so if you think this<br>
is the case, I'd like to see some debug log (e.g., radvd with<br>arguments like '-d 5 -m stderr')<br></blockquote></div><br>1.0 wasn't complaining that ppp3 couldn't support broadcast, 1.1 is complaing (for good reason)<br>
<br>The status at the moment is:<br><br>If I manually configure radvd with the interface that I think pppd is going to assign, and send a SIGHUP on ipv6-up, then radvd reloads the config, and responds to the Vista RA solicitation fine. The problem is that 'magic' interface address.<br>
<br>Now obviously I could write something into ipv6-up that re-writes radvd.conf before it SIGHUP's it, but each ppp interface looks the same:<br><br>interface ppp3<br>{<br> AdvSendAdvert on;<br> MaxRtrAdvInterval 300;<br>
AdvDefaultLifetime 3000;<br> UnicastOnly on;<br> prefix fec0::/64<br> {<br> };<br> prefix 2001:0618:0400:6f39::/64<br> {<br> AdvPreferredLifetime 1200;<br> };<br>
};<br><br>and I might have several clients, all with exactly the same config, so it would make sense to roll them all into one block.<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>- Norman Rasmussen<br> - Email: <a href="mailto:norman@rasmussen.co.za">norman@rasmussen.co.za</a><br>
- Home page: <a href="http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/">http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/</a>