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

Recovering from multiple routers advertising routes



At my office there are a bunch of engineers (including myself) who like to experiment with routers. In one case, an engineer connected one interface of the Cisco router to the general office network and turned on IPv6 with a site-local address. My Linux and WinXP boxes received the router advertisement and set themselves up with the new site-local address, sending all traffic to the new router. In the second case, an engineer powered up a Cisco router which had IPv6 configured previously and connected two of the interfaces to the network. My IPv6-capable boxes saw two router advertisements and wanted to send all IPv6 traffic via this router.

Fixing the routing/addressing problem created by these routers was easy to fix on my Windows XP laptop by rebooting the laptop. I didn't want to reboot my Linux boxes and tried to figure out how to undo the routing changes caused by the router advertisements. "route" failed in my attempts to remove the /64 blocks. I ultimately got rid of the routing problems by rebooting the Linux systems.

My questions:
- What is the recommended set-up for Linux servers which are not set-up as routers? In my opinion, allowing a server to add addresses/routing every time a router starts advertising rogue addressing blocks is dangerous and should be avoided.
-- How is an IPv6 default route added in Debian?
-- Various resources maintain that adding a default route in Linux is problematic and should be avoided. Is this still the case in general and/or with Linux? - How does one recover from receiving a router advertisement from a rogue router without rebooting the Debian Linux system?
-- Are there any IPv6-specific limitations in the "route" command?
-- Are there any lower-level ways of removing IPv6 routes without "route"?
- Finally, a general question which perhaps isn't appropriate for this list, but I'm interested in the scope of the problem. One of the engineers who introduced a rogue router argued that allowing a router to confuse the IPv6 network with router advertisements is a major flaw in the protocol. Is this engineer's statement valid or is protocol just fine and the implementation broken?

Bill Cerveny
Internet2



Reply to: