[libvirt] Proposed: replace radvd with dnsmasq for Router Advertizing

[Gene Czarcinski]

On 11/03/2012 09:01 PM, Laine Stump wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 08:25 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
>> I have been doing some testing and dnsmasq is capable of handling the
>> service currently provided by radvd.  To implement this in dnsmasq
>> requires the following:
>>
>> if an IPv6 dhcp-range is specified, then add:
>>        enable-ra
>>
>> if no IPv6 dhcp-range is specified, then add:
>>        dhsp-range=<IPv6-subnet>,ra-only
>>
>> Tested.  The second one will work with basic dnsmasq-2.6.3.  The first
>> one and dhcp-range itself only works with dnsmasq-2.64 (when released)
>> or dnsmasq-2.63+patches.
> Is this the proper support matrix?
>
>
> dnsmasq       RA       dhcpv6
> < 2.63        no       no
> = 2.63        yes      no
>> 2.63        yes      yes
> Meaning that radvd isn't needed for 2.63 and beyond, but you can't do
> dhcp6 until 2.64, right?
Not really.  It does require two small patches be applied to dnsmas-2.63 
... on ads 14 lines of code and the other about 22 lines of code.  
Without the patches (just running dnsmasq-2.63 for example), it can be 
rightly claimed that that dnsmasq supported dhcp-range dhcp-host for 
IPv6 ... it does work ... just not for libvirt.

The two problems fixed are:

1. Using the same solution that is used for IPv4, allow sharing of the 
address for multiple instances of dnsmasq.

2. Fix the dnsmasq DHCPv6 packet filtering so that valid DHCPv6 requests 
are processed even if "interface=" was not specified.

I have redone my two patches so that they are now the same as Simon 
Kelley's in dnsmasq-2.64 (I am currently running dnsmasq-2.64test7) and 
I have submitted a Fedora RFE to have dnsmasq-2.63 updated with the patches:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=867054

I would appreciate any influence any of you folks may have to get that 
accepted.

BTW, one aspect of all of this is that NetworkManager also needs 
updating so that it will send the correct request to dnsmasq for DHCPv6 
and dynamic dns updating.  That update in "in progress."

I have a number of patches and proposed patches which, now that 
libvirt-1.0.0 has been released, I will be updating and 
submitting/resubmitting.  This includes:

1. patch to put dnsmasq parameters into a conf file rather than on the 
command line.

2. patch to add interface= to the dnsmasq parameters ... this is not one 
of my show stoppers

3. Proposed patch to add and addition conf-file or conf-dir so that 
log-queries and/or log-dhcp could be specified for an instance of 
dnsmasq.  Optionally, add a libvirtd.conf parameter to determine is this 
capability is enabled.

4. Proposed patch to always allow IPv4 and IPv6 packets between guests 
on a network even if no gateway addresses are specified.

** all of the above will work with dnsmasq => 2.48

** the following requires dnsmasq-2.63+patches or dnsmasq-2.64

5. Patch to add DHCPv6 support to libvirt

The listed order above more or less is also how they need to be 
applied.  If any of the above will get an outright rejection (e.g., (2) 
for "interface="), I would appreciate knowing sooner rather than later.

Comments/suggestions appreciated!

>
> In that case, if someone asks for dhcp6, you can assume that they have a
> new enough dnsmasq. (alternately, if we have a runtime check of the
> dnsmasq version, we could even log a proper error when we encountered
> <dhcp> in an ipv6 element, rather than just relying on whatever message
> dnsmasq outputs in that case).
A simple test could be to check if radvd is to be used.  If it is, then 
DHCPv6 support is unlikely and disabled.
>
>> Since dnsmasq-2.48 does not support IPv6 dhcp but does handle IPv6 for
>> dns and CentOS 6 does include radvd, I also propose that a
>> libvirtd.conf option be added.  If the option is not present or set
>> off, then radvd is used.  If the option is set on, then dnsmasq is used.
> See my other mail with the counter-proposal of doing a runtime check of
> the dnsmasq version.
I do no see how that would work for determining if patches were applied 
or not.  See my response to the other message.
>
>> At some point in the future, it can be decided whether to keep using
>> radvd or not.
> We definitely have to keep using it for now, as not everyone has a
> dnsmasq new enough to do route advertisement.
I agree that keeping support for it makes sense.  See the other message 
for my new proposal.

Gene