New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Stateful NAT64 empty pool4 failing for point-to-point interfaces #217

Closed
arurke opened this Issue Jul 10, 2016 · 4 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@arurke
Contributor

arurke commented Jul 10, 2016

See discussion in end of #216 .

4-to-6 lookup in stateful NAT64 with empty pool4 will fail for point-to-point interfaces because the point-to-point address is used instead of the local interface address.

@ydahhrk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ydahhrk

ydahhrk Jul 10, 2016

Member

I see. You are completely right; in fact, the code from empty.c's __pick_addr() (the one that chooses the address in the 6->4 direction) outputs ifa_local instead of ifa_address. This confusion was a major oversight on my part; I apologize.

I can confirm that replacing all mentions of ifa_address into ifa_local does not break anything in the environment where I originally tested the code. I'd encourage you to propose a pull request so Git will credit you for your work, but if you are not interested I'll commit the change at some point late next week (and release 3.4.4).

Member

ydahhrk commented Jul 10, 2016

I see. You are completely right; in fact, the code from empty.c's __pick_addr() (the one that chooses the address in the 6->4 direction) outputs ifa_local instead of ifa_address. This confusion was a major oversight on my part; I apologize.

I can confirm that replacing all mentions of ifa_address into ifa_local does not break anything in the environment where I originally tested the code. I'd encourage you to propose a pull request so Git will credit you for your work, but if you are not interested I'll commit the change at some point late next week (and release 3.4.4).

@arurke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arurke

arurke Jul 10, 2016

Contributor

Great, posted a PR. Are you able to estimate the schedule for the next release? Wondering if I should switch to my own repo for our deployment or wait for the new release.

(or did you mean it is scheduled for late next week?)

Contributor

arurke commented Jul 10, 2016

Great, posted a PR. Are you able to estimate the schedule for the next release? Wondering if I should switch to my own repo for our deployment or wait for the new release.

(or did you mean it is scheduled for late next week?)

@ydahhrk

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ydahhrk

ydahhrk Jul 10, 2016

Member

Since the PR is already available and there are no other changes since 3.4.3 I can start the release preparations right away. If the full test suite doesn't yield any problems (I'm optimistic, as this was a very specific tweak), I should be able to release this happily tomorrow.

Note, however, that #216 itself is part of Jool 3.5.0, which is expected to come out in about a month (unless the code review yields another trainwreck bug. We are currently facing one of those).

Also:

We're owing you three fixes since you started #216 (216, the incorrect FAQ statement and this). Do you want additional credits in Jool's README? If so, please respond (or add to the PR) the information you'd like included.

Member

ydahhrk commented Jul 10, 2016

Since the PR is already available and there are no other changes since 3.4.3 I can start the release preparations right away. If the full test suite doesn't yield any problems (I'm optimistic, as this was a very specific tweak), I should be able to release this happily tomorrow.

Note, however, that #216 itself is part of Jool 3.5.0, which is expected to come out in about a month (unless the code review yields another trainwreck bug. We are currently facing one of those).

Also:

We're owing you three fixes since you started #216 (216, the incorrect FAQ statement and this). Do you want additional credits in Jool's README? If so, please respond (or add to the PR) the information you'd like included.

@ydahhrk ydahhrk added this to the 3.4.4 milestone Jul 10, 2016

@arurke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@arurke

arurke Jul 10, 2016

Contributor

Great! I can work around #216, no rush.

If you want to add my name (Andreas Urke) and a link to my github account I would be honoured 👍 I'm happy I am able to contribute something back

Contributor

arurke commented Jul 10, 2016

Great! I can work around #216, no rush.

If you want to add my name (Andreas Urke) and a link to my github account I would be honoured 👍 I'm happy I am able to contribute something back

@ydahhrk ydahhrk closed this in #218 Jul 11, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment