Prefix Delegation

[Michael Thorsager]

Hello there.. 

I'm messing around with getting some DHCPv6 up and  running..

But I'm having trouble with a client that puts [::] in requested prefix, which results  in.. 

<snip>

DhcpIaPrefixOption

<xml-fragment>

  <prefixLength>56</prefixLength>

  <ipv6Prefix>0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0</ipv6Prefix>

  <preferredLifetime>0</preferredLifetime>

  <validLifetime>0</validLifetime>

</xml-fragment>

....

2012-10-11 16:39:37,749 [pool-3-thread-4] WARN  binding.BaseBindingManager - No BindingPool found for requested client address: 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0

2012-10-11 16:39:37,749 [pool-3-thread-4] WARN  binding.BaseBindingManager - Requested prefix is not available, returning

2012-10-11 16:39:37,750 [pool-3-thread-4] WARN  binding.BaseBindingManager - Failed to create solicit binding

</snip>

and no prefix is returned to client..

I'm guessing that It is a problem with the BaseBindingManager, trying to find a pool containing 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:0 which

fails.. but my thought is that if a client requests [::] prefix it should be handled as if no prefix was requested?

[Greg Rabil]

Hi Michael,

It does appear that the server is failing to handle this case properly.  I agree that the behavior should be as if no prefix was requested.  We will investigate the issue further, and create a bug as needed.

Thanks,

Greg Rabil

[Michael Thorsager]

Great :-)

To get on with my research I created this little patch..

I know it is a hack and it might not be the right place to implement the change but well, 

got the Prefix Delegation working which means that I can go on testing.  

The server is really great stuff and I'm sure I'll be messing a lot more with it in the future.. 

//mit

[Michael Thorsager]

Ah forgot also moved the nullPointer exception stuff to the Prefix ;-)

//mit

[Greg Rabil]

Hi Michael,

Thank you for reporting this bug.  This is also an issue with DHCPv6 clients that request zero address.  Issue 16 was created and fixed to resolve this issue in r173 on the Google Code SVN repository.  The change is slightly different from yours, but we appreciate your pinpointing the faulting code.

Regards,

Greg Rabil

[Greg Rabil]

Hi Michael,

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.  Issue 17 has been created and fixed to resolve this in r174 of the Google Code SVN repository.

Regards,

Greg Rabil

[Michael Thorsager]

No problem at all :-) just glad I could helpe..

The server is great stuff.. I'm currently messing about with Filters, and actually I have some

questions, but I thing I would be appropriate to start A new thread, so I'll do that

//mit