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

Bug#846583: cloud.debian.org: AWS Image should enable DHCPv6 client

2016-12-09 7:23 GMT+01:00 Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org>:
On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 12:25:44PM +0100, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> thanks for providing an AWS EC2 Image with Debian Jessie.
> AWS is now supporting IPv6 on EC2 instances, see
>       https://aws.amazon.com/de/blogs/aws/new-ipv6-support-for-ec2-instances-in-virtual-private-clouds/.
> The support is currently limited to the zone us-east2, but should be
> available in all regions shortly. The provisioning of the IPv6 address
> on the machine is done through stateful DHCPv6.
> For this /etc/network/interfaces needs to be amended with
> iface eth0 inet6 dhcp

Unfortunately this breaks networking for instances in subnets with IPv6
*disabled*, which is likely the vast majority of them for the forseeable

This is obviously a bug then och how running dhcpclient are run. It should be enough that one of them works.  Because this should work with only IPv6 enabled networks too.

Bugreport it to appropriate package..
What seems to happen is that eth0 is brought up, and dhclient runs
twice, once for each supported protocol. eth0 is properly configured
with an IPv4 address, but (after a timeout) the IPv6 dhclient reports a
failure, and ifup returns nonzero. I haven't looked deeply into exactly
what happens next, but the end result is that cloud-init never runs, so
the instance doesn't get properly configured. Most notably this means
that ssh keys aren't installed.

I've investigated a number of possible solutions to this, but haven't
come up with anything better than shell script kludges. For example, it
could work to run the IPv6 dhclient from a post-up script associated
with eth0.

Note that my testing has been with the stretch AMIs generated from
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/cloud/fai-cloud-images.git/ so it's
possible the jessie images will behave slightly differently, but I
expect them to have similar problems.



Reply to: