<betawaffle>
there's still a lot i don't know about ipv6 and linux networking in general
<andi->
you never stop learning :)
<betawaffle>
what does a label do? nothing by itself?
<betawaffle>
is the idea that i'd label this prefix with a number that means "this shit isn't routable, don't use it"
<betawaffle>
and then set up something to tell the kernel that my number means don't use it?
<andi->
The way I read it you should be able to apply a label the entire range that ATT uses for their CPE management.
<andi->
And with a lower precedence
<betawaffle>
how do i set the precedence?
<andi->
No idea :D
<andi->
I just stumbled upon that while looking for something else
<betawaffle>
so, ipv6 is working from all my non-router hosts now, it seems
<andi->
nice, you still have the duplicate route entries?
<betawaffle>
the only thing left is to fix it on the router
<betawaffle>
i think so, yeah. let me check
<betawaffle>
yep
<betawaffle>
i mean, it's technically not hurting anything, but it doesn't make sense
<andi->
that might be a side-effect of Assign=1
<andi->
The route with a ttl is what networkd usually installs (even without having an address from that subnet on the interface as that isn't required)
<andi->
the route without rrl is likely due to the prefix on the interface
<andi->
s/rrl/ttl/
<betawaffle>
ok, let me try it without Assign=true
<andi->
While `ip -6 route` shows them differently they should be equivalent BECAUSE the address on the interface should have the ttl
<andi->
and as soon as the address is invalid the route is gone.
<betawaffle>
andi-: are you going to submit a patch to networkd to allow disabling IA_NA?
<betawaffle>
it'd be nice to avoid whatever hack i'm going to make *eventually*
<betawaffle>
hmm, assign commented out, and it's still there. let me try removing it by hand, and see if it comes back
<betawaffle>
lol, nope, they came back
<andi->
betawaffle: I am not sure if disablig IA_NA is even compliant..
<andi->
I would like to read up on that first
<andi->
Regardless of that outcome we might create a patch
<betawaffle>
well, dhclient seems to be able to do it just fine
<betawaffle>
anyway, i think i may know where the dups are coming from\
<andi->
being able to do something and implementing the standard everyone agreed on are two things ;)
<betawaffle>
well at&t are breaking all sorts of standards. we live in the real world here
<betawaffle>
though i can imagine lennart not liking the idea
<andi->
I mean that is why we should inspect the standard.
<andi->
If it says you can do that we have a much easier way
<andi->
if it doesn't we'll have to come up with an detailed explanation why it is still a good idea.
<andi->
(and we roughly have that already)
<andi->
betawaffle: we can pair on such a patch if you want. I usually do not just hack on random topics unless it solves any of my problems.
<betawaffle>
i'll let you know when i next have time for that
<betawaffle>
so, the other interesting thing is that the route without the proto has metric 1024, which is networkd's default. the kernel one has metric 256. is it possible the kernel impl of accept_ra got enabled somehow?
<betawaffle>
networkd docs say that can't happen
<betawaffle>
but i don't know how the kernel would know which subnet id i want...
<betawaffle>
andi-: how well does the networkd dhcp server work?
<betawaffle>
should i replace dhcpd?
<andi->
I did and I am happy
<andi->
It does not yet support static leases
<andi->
but there is an open PR
<betawaffle>
ahh, well i'm not using static leases now, but i want to
<betawaffle>
my only problem with dhcpd is i haven't figured out how to get systemd to start it late enough, it always crashloops about 4 times
<betawaffle>
tbh, i'm thinking of maybe writing my own dhcp server eventually (or rather, something that combines a bunch of stuff, like dhcp, dns, http, https, etc). sort of a home network hub
<andi->
If you have no pressure / can get that implemented in time: go for it :)
<andi->
I am more than happy that I got rid of the legacy tech stack for network setup
<betawaffle>
yeah
<andi->
it does mean that some machines do not have stable IPs right now but they rarely change (not once so far)
<betawaffle>
i'm kind of a crazy person i think, i'm using nixos, networkd, and nftables on my router
<betawaffle>
just slightly too bleeding edge
<andi->
how is that crazy? Everything is released software :)
<andi->
I did run the first version of SubnetId with severe bugs for months
<andi->
until the kernel did run out of space for more network addresses... turned out there was a limit :D
<andi->
Each interface with IIRC 256 addresses and at some point the kernel just wouldn't add/renew them anymore
<betawaffle>
heh
<betawaffle>
it's a bit crazy because i don't exactly have enough time to properly maintain this stuff
<andi->
That is why you are using NixOS
<andi->
it will not suddenly break and if it does anyhow you just roll back and go on with your life
<betawaffle>
yeah, i had to use rollback yesterday
eyJhb has quit [Quit: Clever message]
eyJhb has joined #nixos-on-your-router
eyJhb has joined #nixos-on-your-router
eyJhb has quit [Changing host]
maljub01 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
maljub01 has joined #nixos-on-your-router
lopsided98 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
lopsided98 has joined #nixos-on-your-router
eyJhb has quit [Quit: Clever message]
eyJhb has joined #nixos-on-your-router
<betawaffle>
andi-: so, networkd has a DenyList option in IPv6AcceptRA, but the docs seem to indicate it only applies to prefixes given by router adverts
<betawaffle>
why isn't there such an option for DHCPv6? (they have one for DHCPv4)
<andi->
Nobody implemented it?
<betawaffle>
andi-: ok, so can you tell me what the vrf idea you had would look like with iproute2 commands?