-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 247
[pd] support of multiple prefixes publishing and deprecating #2743
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2743 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 55.77% 44.37% -11.40%
===========================================
Files 87 113 +26
Lines 6890 13588 +6698
Branches 0 965 +965
===========================================
+ Hits 3843 6030 +2187
- Misses 3047 7242 +4195
- Partials 0 316 +316 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any new tests added to cover the changes?
@yangsong-cnyn @bukepo I'm trying to understand what the purpose is of this PR and of the function that it is modifying. If a prefix gets delegated to a BR, that alone won't have any impact on the RAs being sent on the AIL. So no reason to change anything in the RAs based on DHCPv6-PD events alone. The only requirement is that the RA must advertise all on-mesh+routable prefixes on the AIL, using RIO. But this is already a requirement even if DHCPv6-PD is not used or was not successful. So there should be standard code already doing this. (This PR looks like it wants to modify the PIO. And per the Thread spec, the AIL on-link prefix that a BR creates using PIO is always a ULA prefix, not dependent on DHCPv6-PD in any way.) |
@EskoDijk , this PR is probably no longer relevant, as we are switching to using a DHCPv6 Client implemented within OT core. This PR was an attempt to leverage dhcpcd and communicate the PD prefix using RA message format. Those RAs would never be sent on the AIL. |
Ok good to know! It seems to encode the PD prefix(es) in the radvd config format which kind of suggested radvd would use it. |
Add support of multiple prefixes handling in both
dhcpcd.enter-hook (Publishing Prefixes):
dhcpcd.exit-hook (Deprecating Prefixes):