RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Can I autoconfigure both interfaces as slaac (accept_ra 1) on a non-router device?

Taylor, thank you for the feedback.
For outbound traffic, the link-local would spell the interface, xxx%eth1.
So in this case, the kernel in theory could still pick arbitrary the other route?

Yes, I am on Linux.
Do you know the mailing list for Linux related to ipv6 stuff? I appreciate the info, in case you have it handy.

Thanks again,
Marinela Selseth

From: Taylor R Campbell <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Taylor R Campbell
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 8:50 AM
To: Marinela Selseth <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Can I autoconfigure both interfaces as slaac (accept_ra 1) on a non-router device?

> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 04: 46: 22 +0000 > From: Marinela Selseth <Marinela. Selseth@ entrust. com> > > Need clarification to the following statement > > Also, due to restrictions in the IPv6 specification, it is not recommended


> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 04:46:22 +0000

> From: Marinela Selseth <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>

>

> Need clarification to the following statement

>

>    Also, due to restrictions in the IPv6 specification, it is not recommended to autoconfigure a host with multiple external interfaces (like 2 ethernet interfaces).

>

> from page

> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.netbsd.org/docs/network/ipv6/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!YSjHPcWGyEiJN3GwwAqT5k28MX71pK9J7LfbIs2qtn92pOGVQF6KfkuUMFmLTyWx7Bg9arr8TT-Wj2P7mDzVhuUS86sFFmt7yw$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.netbsd.org/docs/network/ipv6/__;!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!YSjHPcWGyEiJN3GwwAqT5k28MX71pK9J7LfbIs2qtn92pOGVQF6KfkuUMFmLTyWx7Bg9arr8TT-Wj2P7mDzVhuUS86sFFmt7yw$>



If this statement is true, it ought to have a citation or explanation

to substantiate it.



Unfortunately, the person who wrote it back in 2000 was itojun@, so we

can't ask the author for clarification:



https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/htdocs/Documentation/network/ipv6/Attic/index.list?only_with_tag=MAIN*rev1.26__;Iw!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!YSjHPcWGyEiJN3GwwAqT5k28MX71pK9J7LfbIs2qtn92pOGVQF6KfkuUMFmLTyWx7Bg9arr8TT-Wj2P7mDzVhuUS86vghbtHfA$<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/htdocs/Documentation/network/ipv6/Attic/index.list?only_with_tag=MAIN*rev1.26__;Iw!!FJ-Y8qCqXTj2!YSjHPcWGyEiJN3GwwAqT5k28MX71pK9J7LfbIs2qtn92pOGVQF6KfkuUMFmLTyWx7Bg9arr8TT-Wj2P7mDzVhuUS86vghbtHfA$>



(itojun@ passed in 2007.)



So we'll have to figure it out and fix the documentation...



> Here is my question.

>

> Not router host, set accept_ra 1, two interfaces, eth0, eth1

> The routing table ends up with two default link-local routes.

>

> default via fe80::b60c:25ff:fee0:8011 dev eth1 proto ra metric 1024 expires 1726sec hoplimit 64 pref medium

> default via fe80::b60c:25ff:fee0:8011 dev eth0 proto ra metric 1024 expires 1787sec hoplimit 64 pref medium

>

> Is this going to work, I am concerned about having two default routes, and if the statement above still applies.



This appears to be the output of `ip -6 route' on Linux, which

suggests you're asking about Linux, so I suspect the NetBSD networking

mailing list may not be a good place to get the rest of the answers

you're looking for.



That said, I don't think this routing table in itself is a problem:

you just have two alternate default routes which both work, and the

kernel will pick one arbitrarily for each packet going out (and

probably stick to the same choice for all packets in each network

flow).



In this case it happens that they route to the same gateway via the

same link-local address, but if the interfaces were on different

subnets with different gateways, you'd have the same situation of an

arbitrary choice of route for each packet.

Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If this message has been sent to you in error, you must not copy, distribute or disclose of the information it contains. Please notify Entrust immediately and delete the message from your system.