[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#652573: busybox-udeb: debian stable busybox udhcp client does not support /32 netmasks


On 05.06.2012 18:36, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 05.06.2012 20:10, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> []
>> It is not udhcpc, and not the udhcpc script either.  It is busybox's
>> `ip' utility.
>> # busybox ip -4 add dev dummy0
>> ip: invalid argument '' to 'ip'
> And this is, ofcourse, a typo...  I forgot to use `addr'.
>> # busybox ip -4 add dev dummy0
> And this one I actually didn't run at all, hitting CtrlC
> instead of Enter!
> That's what happens when you do things when you're too
> tired... :(  Please excuse me for the noize.  Digging
> further, and I'll update the bugreports accordingly
> (will restore it all back if I wont be able to find
> the issue).
> For now I see another _possible_ issue, which needs
> to be verified in d-i: this is the place which adds
> routes.  Neither debian default.script nor your script
> is able to add routes:
> # busybox ip r add via dev dummy0
> ip: RTNETLINK answers: No such process

That can't work. That's why my script sets the routers-variable to $ip
when netmask is "".

Somewhere in ARP-RFC it is defined that a router shall respond to
WHO-HAS requests where requester and sender is the same address. So you
actually set default-route to the assigned IP on /32-Assignments.

> The same happens when using route(8) utility.  For this
> to work, two routes should be added: first to the gateway
> host, without the "via" part:
>  # busybox ip r add dev dummy0
> and second is the actual default (or whatever) route going
> via that gateway, the regular way:
>  # busybox ip r add via
> ("dev" is optional here, just like for the regular case).
> Alternative is to use the keyword "onlink":
>  # ip r add via dev dummy0 onlink
> but this does not work with busybox (yet).
> I think this /32 case is worth to handle specially, using the
> onlink or two route entries.
> But I'm not sure this is the actual case the regular bug is
> about: for the route to work with netmask != /32, the gateway
> must be within the netmask, so if you specify, eg,
> for the client, the router must be
> Does it look real?
> But again, please note that the script provided by Jens should
> fail exactly the same way!  So... I guess it is not the issue... :(
> Thank you for patience!
> /mjt


Reply to: