Bug #14785
closedPrimary IPv6 interface address may be incorrect when a VIP is set
100%
Description
If a compressed IPv6 VIP exists, the interface's primary IPv6 address will be set to the VIP even when a non-VIP GUA exists. Example (partially redacted):
vmx1.98: flags=1008843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST,LOWER_UP> metric 0 mtu 1500 description: ISP2 options=4000000<MEXTPG> ether 00:50:56:b2:b1:89 inet 192.168.1.253 netmask 0xfffffffc broadcast 192.168.1.255 inet6 fe80::250:56ff:feb2:b189%vmx1.98 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0xf inet6 VIP:VIP:VIP:VIP:5:5:0:1 prefixlen 128 inet6 ULA:ULA:ULA:ULA:250:56ff:feb2:b189 prefixlen 64 autoconf pltime 3600 vltime 86400 inet6 GUA:GUA:GUA:GUA:250:56ff:feb2:b189 prefixlen 64 autoconf pltime 2592000 vltime 2592000 groups: vlan vlan: 98 vlanproto: 802.1q vlanpcp: 0 parent interface: vmx1 media: Ethernet autoselect status: active nd6 options=23<PERFORMNUD,ACCEPT_RTADV,AUTO_LINKLOCAL>
Here, the primary address should be
GUA:GUA:GUA:GUA:250:56ff:feb2:b189
, but instead Status > Interfaces shows it's VIP:VIP:VIP:VIP:5:5:0:1
.
Related issues
Updated by Marcos M 8 months ago
- Related to Regression #14623: Primary interface address is incorrectly set to the last address on the interface added
Updated by Marcos M 8 months ago
- Status changed from Pull Request Review to Feedback
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
Applied in changeset 9bda254db22b1d87da8e17b14d045eb55a0c7e92.
Updated by Azamat Khakimyanov 7 months ago
- Status changed from Feedback to Assigned
Tested on 23.05_1 and 23.09-DEV (built on Tue Oct 3 6:00:00 UTC 2023)
I partly can reproduce this issue on 23.05_1 with uncompressed IPv6 VIP:
- I don't see VIP:VIP:VIP:VIP:5:4:3:1 as an WAN IPv6 address in Status/Interfaces
- but I see VIP:VIP:VIP:VIP:5:4:3:1 as a Primary WAN IPv6 address (first IPv6-address after LL and above DHCPv6 IPv6 addresses (ULA and GLA)) in 'ifconfig' output.
On 23.09-DEV the behavior is different, DHCPv6 IPv6 address is always above uncompressed VIP IPv6.
BUT when I used compressed IPv6-address (VIP:VIP::1/128) as a WAN VIP, I still saw this compressed VIP IPv6 as a Primary WAN IPv6 address in 'ifconfig' output even on latest 23.09-DEV.
Updated by Jim Pingle 7 months ago
- Status changed from Assigned to Feedback
Azamat Khakimyanov wrote in #note-6:
BUT when I used compressed IPv6-address (VIP:VIP::1/128) as a WAN VIP, I still saw this compressed VIP IPv6 as a Primary WAN IPv6 address in 'ifconfig' output even on latest 23.09-DEV.
The changes here affect the output of get_interface_addresses()
, the order on ifconfig output
doesn't matter so long as the functions return the expected addresses. Was the output of the function for that interface correct in each case?