Thank you for your review and feedback, Ido.
>> Without this flag, when there are mutliple default routers, the kernel
>> coalesces multiple default routes into an ECMP route. The ECMP route
>> ignores per-route REACHABILITY information. If one of the default
>> routers is unresponsive, with a Neighbor Cache entry of INCOMPLETE, then
>> it can still be selected as the nexthop for outgoing packets. This
>> results in an inability to communicate with remote hosts, even though
>> one of the default routers remains REACHABLE. This violates RFC4861
>> section 6.3.6, bullet 1.
>
>Do you have forwarding disabled (it causes RT6_LOOKUP_F_REACHABLE to be
>set)?
Yes, forwarding is disabled on our embedded system. Though, this needs to
work on systems regardless of the state of forwarding.
> Is the problem that fib6_table_lookup() chooses a reachable
>nexthop and then fib6_select_path() overrides it with an unreachable
>one?
I'm afraid I don't know.
The objective is to allow IPv6 Netlink clients to be able to create default
routes from RAs in the same way the kernel creates default routes from RAs.
Essentially, I'm trying to have Netlink and Kernel behaviors match.
My analysis led me to the need for Netlink clients to set the kernel's
fib6_config flags RTF_RA_ROUTER, where:
#define RTF_RA_ROUTER (RTF_ADDRCONF | RTF_DEFAULT)
>> + if (rtm->rtm_flags & RTM_F_RA_ROUTER)
>> + cfg->fc_flags |= RTF_RA_ROUTER;
>> +
>
> It is possible there are user space programs out there that set this bit
> (knowingly or not) when sending requests to the kernel and this change
> will result in a behavior change for them. So, if we were to continue in
> this path, this would need to be converted to a new netlink attribute to
> avoid such potential problems.
>
Is this a mandated approach to implementing unspecified bits in a flag?
I'm a little surprised by this consideration. If we account for poorly
written buggy user-programs, doesn't this open any API to an explosion
of new attributes or other odd extensions? I'd imagine the same argument
would be applicable to ioctl flags, socket flags, and so on. Why would we
treat implementing unspecified Netlink bits differently to implementing
unspecified ioctl bits, etc.
Naturally, if this is the mandated approach, then I'll reimplement it with
a new Netlink attribute. I'm just trying to understand what is the
Linux-lore, here?
> BTW, you can avoid the coalescing problem by using the nexthop API (man
> ip-nexthop).
I'm not sure how that would help in this case. We need the nexthop to be
determined according to its REACHABILITY and other considerations described
in RFC4861.
Kind regards,
Matt.
