<div dir="ltr">Of note is the fact that the ULA prefix being announced is the ubiquitous fd00::/64.<div><br></div><div>Great idea, ULAs.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com" target="_blank">brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This creates a tricky problem for homenet, I think, but I agree that my CE<br>
is doing what that requirement says. This also creates a truly annoying<br>
coding problem for me, which I won't go into here (except to gripe that Linux<br>
makes it very annoying indeed to discover your own global unicast address).<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"> Brian<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On 13/10/2016 16:55, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:<br>
> The linux host is correctly not adding a default route because the RA<br>
> specifies a router lifetime of 0, likely due to RFC 7084 requirement G-4.<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter <<br>
> <a href="mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com">brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> I'll send you the RA packet off-list.<br>
>><br>
>> Brian<br>
>><br>
>> On 13/10/2016 14:10, Brian E Carpenter wrote:<br>
>>> On 13/10/2016 13:47, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:<br>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Brian E Carpenter <<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com">brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> But what it says (before I install the correct default route) is<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> fd00::/64 via fe80::be05:43ff:fe8e:ce39 dev wlp2s0 proto ra metric<br>
>> 600<br>
>>>>> pref medium<br>
>>>>> fe80::/64 dev wlp2s0 proto kernel metric 256 pref medium<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> No default, as you can see.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Do you have a tcpdump of the RA?<br>
>>><br>
>>> No. Any suggestions how I can catch one? Would a Wireshark capture be<br>
>> useful?<br>
>>><br>
>>> Brian<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>