How to report IPv6 bug to Microsoft - Vista and 7 won't "undeprecate" a prefix

[Tore Anderson]

Hi Mark,

* Mark Smith

> No it isn't one of yours.

AVM FRITZ!Box?

http://getipv6.info/index.php/Customer_problems_that_could_occur#AVM

> I've just had a closer look at what it is doing on it's LAN interface -
> 
> 1. While the ADSL link is up, it advertises both it's global prefix and
> a "ULA" prefix in it's LAN interface RAs. The global prefix preferred
> lifetime is 3600, while the valid lifetime is 7200, regardless of what
> we are setting on the delegated prefix. The "ULA" prefix is announced
> with a 0 second preferred and valid lifetimes.

What happens if you connect the WAN port to an IPv4-only network; ULA
PIO with normal lifetimes? What about the RA lifetime in this case?

> 2. When the ADSL link fails, the prefix lifetime values are reversed -
> the global gets all zeros, while the "ULA"'s become 3600/7200.

I'm curious to hear if something happens with the lifetime of the RA
itself in this case. Does it get set to 0 so that the hosts on the LAN
remove the default route?

What happens if only the IPv6 part of the WAN connection fails (e.g. if
a DHCPv6 lease expires)?

The reason I'm asking is that this device might cause end-user
brokenness if it can be made to announce a ULA prefix with a router
lifetime of >0 that is *not* accompanied by a global prefix. This would
cause end-user hosts to attempt to use the ULA addresses when connecting
to dual-stacked destinations, as ULAs have global scope and are not
assigned a distinct label in the RFC3484 policy table in any recent
operating system. If that is the case I would very much like to document
this device as a source of brokenness in the ARIN Wiki.

Best regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Tel: +47 21 54 41 27