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

Re: [libvirt] Proposed: always allow packets internal to an interface

On 11/08/2012 04:44 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 02:41:29PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
>> On 11/07/2012 04:25 PM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
>>> IPv4 and IPv6 networks are suppose to have the same (more or less)
>>> functionality so why isn't this OK.
>> "Maintaining backward compatibility", both API and operational. In the
>> past it wasn't the case that we simply did nothing about ipv6 on
>> libvirt's networks, instead we explicitly set a sysctl to *disable* it.
>> That must have been done for some reason. That reason may no longer be
>> valid, but we don't know that yet (it happened before I was around). If
>> the reason is no longer valid, we can go ahead as you suggest (and I
>> would say we don't even need an option to not have ip6tables, just force
>> people to build the full iptables package as God intended :-P). If the
>> reason *is* still valid, then we need to only enable the ipv6 sysctl and
>> add the ip6tables rule in response to some new flag attribute in the
>> network config.
> If you don't disable IPv6 on the bridge device, then when starting the
> network device, the kernel will auto-assign an IPv6 link local address,
> which the guest can then use to communicate with the host. In the IPv4
> case, if you don't specify any <ip> address, there is no "link local"
> like address present, so there's no connectivity between guest and
> host. So explicitly disabling IPv6 is in fact required in order to
> give consistent behaviour between IPv6 and IPv4.

Okay, so there's the straight dope :-)

> I've no objections to anyone adding a new 'ipv6=on|off' attribute to
> the network XML so that admins can explicitly choosen whether to allow
> IPv6, indepedently of whether any <ip> element is set with an IPv6 address.

Hmm - would it maybe be okay to always add the ip6tables rule to allow
ipv6 traffic between interfaces on the bridge, while still setting
disable_ipv6=1 (unless there is an <ip> with an ipv6 address)? The
guests could then do IPv6 among themselves if they wanted, but there
would be no way to get to the host via IPv6.

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