SD_DHCP6_OPTION_IA_NA does not exist in DHCP6_ADVERTISE packet if DHCP server only provides prefix delegation. So the attempt to send the DHCP6_REQUEST packet fails on r = dhcp6_option_append_ia(&opt, &optlen, &client->lease->ia); forever.
Similar to free_and_replace. I think this should be uppercase to make it
clear that this is a macro. free_and_replace should probably be uppercased
too.
This really doesn't matter given that AF_xyz and PF_xyz are equivalent
in all ways, but we almost always use AF_xyz, hence stick to it
universally and convert the remaining PF_ to AF_
When a prefix is delegated to an interface that is already sending
RAs, send an RA immediately to inform clients of the new prefix.
This allows them to start using it immediately instead of waiting
up to nearly 10 minutes (depending on when the last timed RA was
sent). This type of situation might occur if, for example, an
outage of the WAN connection caused the addresses and prefixes to
be lost and later regained after service was restored. The
condition for the number of RAs sent being above 0 simultaneously
ensures that RADV is already running and that this code doesn't
send any RAs before the timed RAs have started when the interface
first comes up.
To make Driver= in [Match] section work in containers.
Note that ID_NET_DRIVER= property in udev database is set with the
result of the ethtool. So, this should not change anything for
non-container cases.
Closes#15678.
This is an attempt to clean-up the DHCP lease server type code a bit. We
now strictly use the same enum everywhere, and store server info in an
array. Moreover, we use the same nomenclature everywhere.
This only makes the changes in the sd-dhcp code. The networkd code is
untouched so far (but should be fixed up like this too. But it's more
complicated since this would then touch actual settings in .network
files).
Note that this also changes some field names in serialized lease files.
But given that these field names have not been part of a released
version of systemd yet, such a change should be ok.
This is pure renaming/refactoring, shouldn't actually change any
behaviour.
RFC: 8415
21.17. Vendor-specific Information Option
This option is used by clients and servers to exchange vendor-
specific information.
The format of the Vendor-specific Information option is:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_VENDOR_OPTS | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| enterprise-number |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. vendor-option-data .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 30: Vendor-specific Information Option Format
option-code OPTION_VENDOR_OPTS (17).
option-len 4 + length of vendor-option-data field.
enterprise-number The vendor's registered Enterprise Number as
maintained by IANA [IANA-PEN]. A 4-octet
field containing an unsigned integer.
vendor-option-data Vendor options, interpreted by
vendor-specific code on the clients and
servers. A variable-length field (4 octets
less than the value in the option-len field).
The definition of the information carried in this option is vendor
specific. The vendor is indicated in the enterprise-number field.
Use of vendor-specific information allows enhanced operation,
utilizing additional features in a vendor's DHCP implementation. A
DHCP client that does not receive requested vendor-specific
information will still configure the node's IPv6 stack to be
functional.
The vendor-option-data field MUST be encoded as a sequence of
code/length/value fields of format identical to the DHCP options (see
Section 21.1). The sub-option codes are defined by the vendor
identified in the enterprise-number field and are not managed by
IANA. Each of the sub-options is formatted as follows:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| sub-opt-code | sub-option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
. .
. sub-option-data .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 31: Vendor-specific Options Format
sub-opt-code The code for the sub-option. A 2-octet
field.
sub-option-len An unsigned integer giving the length of the
sub-option-data field in this sub-option in
octets. A 2-octet field.
sub-option-data The data area for the sub-option. The
length, in octets, is specified by
sub-option-len.
Multiple instances of the Vendor-specific Information option may
appear in a DHCP message. Each instance of the option is interpreted
according to the option codes defined by the vendor identified by the
Enterprise Number in that option. Servers and clients MUST NOT send
more than one instance of the Vendor-specific Information option with
the same Enterprise Number. Each instance of the Vendor-specific
Information option MAY contain multiple sub-options.
A client that is interested in receiving a Vendor-specific
Information option:
- MUST specify the Vendor-specific Information option in an Option
Request option.
- MAY specify an associated Vendor Class option (see Section 21.16).
- MAY specify the Vendor-specific Information option with
appropriate data.
Servers only return the Vendor-specific Information options if
specified in Option Request options from clients and:
- MAY use the Enterprise Numbers in the associated Vendor Class
options to restrict the set of Enterprise Numbers in the
Vendor-specific Information options returned.
- MAY return all configured Vendor-specific Information options.
- MAY use other information in the packet or in its configuration to
determine which set of Enterprise Numbers in the Vendor-specific
Information options to return.
We need to fix RCC 2215 behaviour with rfc7550 errata
and https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8415.
[RFC3315] specifies that a client must ignore an Advertise message if
a server will not assign any addresses to a client, and [RFC3633]
specifies that a client must ignore an Advertise message if a server
returns the NoPrefixAvail status to a requesting router. Thus, a
client requesting both IA_NA and IA_PD, with a server that only
offers either addresses or delegated prefixes, is not supported by
the current protocol specifications.
Solution: a client SHOULD accept Advertise messages, even when not
all IA option types are being offered. And, in this case, the client
SHOULD include the not offered IA option types in its Request. A
client SHOULD only ignore an Advertise message when none of the
requested IA options include offered addresses or delegated prefixes.
Note that ignored messages MUST still be processed for SOL_MAX_RT and
INF_MAX_RT options as specified in [RFC7083].
Replace Section 17.1.3 of RFC 3315: (existing errata)
The client MUST ignore any Advertise message that includes a Status
Code option containing the value NoAddrsAvail, with the exception
that the client MAY display the associated status message(s) to the
user.
With the following text (which addresses the existing erratum
[Err2471] and includes the changes made by [RFC7083]):
The client MUST ignore any Advertise message that contains no
addresses (IAADDR options encapsulated in IA_NA or IA_TA options)
and no delegated prefixes (IAPREFIX options encapsulated in IA_PD
options; see RFC 3633) with the exception that the client:
- MUST process an included SOL_MAX_RT option (RFC 7083) and
- MUST process an included INF_MAX_RT option (RFC 7083).
A client can display any associated status message(s) to the user
or activity log.
The client ignoring this Advertise message MUST NOT restart the
Solicit retransmission timer.
Instead of -EBUSY, return 0 from sd_ipv4ll_start() if it's already started,
and change successful start return value to 1.
This matches sd_ndisc_start() behavior; 1 indicates successful start, and
0 indicates already started.