Project

General

Profile

Actions
Copy link

Bug #6826

closed

DNS forwarder is sending packets with link-local IPv6 source address to global unicast address

Added by Brian Candler about 8 years ago. Updated about 8 years ago.

Status:
Rejected
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Jim Pingle
Category:
DNS Forwarder
Target version:
-
Start date:
09/29/2016
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Estimated time:
Plus Target Version:
Release Notes:
Affected Version:
Affected Architecture:

Description

  • Install pfsense 2.3.2. WAN and LAN interfaces. No global IPv6 address assigned to WAN interface (but see NOTE below)
  • Run tcpdump on the WAN interface
  • From a client on the LAN side, try to resolve a name which has IPv6 nameservers, e.g. "www.nsrc.org"

Result: for the first 2 seconds it is trying to send IPv6 packets with a link-local source address, which is pointless.

13:53:56.668772 IP6 fe80::5054:ff:fe45:78d7.13607 > 2001:468:d01:3c::80df:3c16.53: 21553% [1au] A? www.nsrc.org. (41)
13:53:57.421973 IP6 fe80::5054:ff:fe45:78d7.27340 > 2001:468:d01:3c::80df:3c16.53: 39295% [1au] A? www.nsrc.org. (41)
13:53:58.175041 IP 10.69.255.66.54197 > 147.28.0.39.53: 2501% [1au] A? www.nsrc.org. (41)
13:53:58.331785 IP 147.28.0.39.53 > 10.69.255.66.54197: 2501*- 2/3/5 CNAME nsrc.org., A 128.223.157.25 (785)
13:53:58.332289 IP 10.69.255.66.28896 > 128.223.60.22.53: 53214% [1au] A? nsrc.org. (37)
13:53:58.515788 IP 128.223.60.22.53 > 10.69.255.66.28896: 53214*- 1/3/5 A 128.223.157.25 (221)

NOTE: the test network does have an upstream router sending out IPv6 router advertisements, but without SLAAC or DHCPv6 enabled. I believe this is a perfectly reasonable situation: I have this because I only want manually-configured devices to have an IPv6 address.

It means that the routing table does pick up an IPv6 default gateway (with a link-local next hop)

[2.3.2-RELEASE][]/root: netstat -rn6
Routing tables

Internet6:
Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire
default fe80::9e97:26ff:fe0b:6e19%vtnet1 UGS vtnet1
::1 link#6 UH lo0
fe80::9e97:26ff:fe0b:6e19 fe80::9e97:26ff:fe0b:6e19%vtnet1 UGHS vtnet1
fe80::%vtnet0/64 link#1 U vtnet0
fe80::5054:ff:feda:957d%vtnet0 link#1 UHS lo0
fe80::%vtnet1/64 link#2 U vtnet1
fe80::5054:ff:fe45:78d7%vtnet1 link#2 UHS lo0
fe80::%lo0/64 link#6 U lo0
fe80::1%lo0 link#6 UHS lo0
ff01::%vtnet0/32 fe80::5054:ff:feda:957d%vtnet0 U vtnet0
ff01::%vtnet1/32 fe80::5054:ff:fe45:78d7%vtnet1 U vtnet1
ff01::%lo0/32 ::1 U lo0
ff02::%vtnet0/32 fe80::5054:ff:feda:957d%vtnet0 U vtnet0
ff02::%vtnet1/32 fe80::5054:ff:fe45:78d7%vtnet1 U vtnet1
ff02::%lo0/32 ::1 U lo0

However, I do not believe that a host should ever send a packet to a global unicast address using a link-local source address.

Actions
Copy link

Also available in: Atom PDF