We use a Cisco ASA, which doesn't exhibit advertising a default route
as a /128. I don't see any added benefit of using a /128 when a
default route should be advertised.
Are there any additional steps I can help with to get this mainlined?
Thanks,
Alexander Huynh
SRE, Cloudflare
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Daniel Lenski <dlenski at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2017 3:33 PM, "Alexander Huynh" <alexander at cloudflare.com> wrote:
>>I'm attaching a patch to fix a minor problem with IPv6 routes, wherein
>>a /128 route advertised by the server will end up being processed as a
>>default route on the client.
>>
>>Thanks for providing us with a nice AnyConnect alternative!
>>
>> diff --git a/vpnc-script b/vpnc-script
>> index 6302987..3434ef6 100755
>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Huynh <alex at frothy.coffee>
>> --- a/vpnc-script
>> +++ b/vpnc-script
>> @@ -749,10 +749,10 @@ do_connect() {
>> while [ $i -lt $CISCO_IPV6_SPLIT_INC ] ; do
>> eval NETWORK="\${CISCO_IPV6_SPLIT_INC_${i}_ADDR}"
>> eval NETMASKLEN="\${CISCO_IPV6_SPLIT_INC_${i}_MASKLEN}"
>> - if [ $NETMASKLEN -lt 128 ]; then
>> - set_ipv6_network_route "$NETWORK" "$NETMASKLEN"
>> - else
>> + if [ $NETMASKLEN -eq 0 ]; then
>> set_ipv6_default_route
>> + else
>> + set_ipv6_network_route "$NETWORK" "$NETMASKLEN"
>> fi
>> i=`expr $i + 1`
>> done
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> I wonder why the current vpnc-script has this behavior. It appears to
> have been there since the original addition of IPv6 route support:
> http://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/vpnc-scripts.git/commitdiff/9f8c68c11a1f9f9a822e634459ce104f2bc44bb6
>
> Is there some well-known case where a misconfigured server reports a
> default IPv6 route as /128??
>
> Dan
