Distribute ipv6 in descending order

Here you can post your feature requests and suggestions
Post Reply
hugleo
Posts: 51
Joined: 13 Apr 2016, 14:28

Distribute ipv6 in descending order

Post by hugleo » 02 Mar 2017, 13:19

Accel-ppp distribute ipv6 delegated pool in ascending order like:

xxxx:xxx:3fe0:200::/56
xxxx:xxx:3fe0:300::/56
xxxx:xxx:3fe0:400::/56

My router will slaac/dhcp ipv6 for the clients in my network.

Windows machines will get a ip like:
xxxx:xxx:3fe0:200::xxx/64

The problem happened if pppoe session in router needs to be restarted. So accel will delegate a new pool, the next one xxxx:xxx:3fe0:300::/56.
So since windows machine keeps all ipv6 in cache will can see that now appears two ipv6 in network in device.
windows ipconfig:
xxxx:xxx:3fe0:200::xxx/64
xxxx:xxx:3fe0:300::xxx/64

Windows try to use the smallest ipv6 address xxxx:xxx:3fe0:200::xxx/64 that is not more valid.
To solve I need to restart windows ou reconnect the network cable.

So would be cool a option to accel distribute the delegated ipv6 in reverse order (descending order) like:
xxxx:xxx:3fe0:400::/56
xxxx:xxx:3fe0:300::/56
xxxx:xxx:3fe0:200::/56

hugleo
Posts: 51
Joined: 13 Apr 2016, 14:28

Re: Distribute ipv6 in descending order

Post by hugleo » 02 Mar 2017, 15:50

edited accel-pppd/extra/ipv6pool.c file

Lines: 127 e 128
list_add_tail(&a->entry, &it->it.prefix_list);
list_add_tail(&it->entry, &dppool);

Changed to:
list_add(&a->entry, &it->it.prefix_list);
list_add(&it->entry, &dppool);

Will it work without any side effects?

hugleo
Posts: 51
Joined: 13 Apr 2016, 14:28

Re: Distribute ipv6 in descending order

Post by hugleo » 02 Mar 2017, 22:39

Never mind. Since ipv6 pool rotates is not guaranteed that the same user get a lower address.
The correct solution would be use a delegated static prefix or tell microsoft to fix the problem.

One solution that could be implemented in accel side would be save the delegated ipv6 prefix with a mac and lease time. If the pppoe user session needs to reconnect then the user will get the same delegated pool than before.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest