search

NICMx / Jool

SIIT and NAT64 for Linux
GNU General Public License v2.0
326 stars 66 forks source link

NAT64 Jool should probably complain when bogus addresses are inserted to pool4 #144

Closed ydahhrk closed 9 years ago

ydahhrk commented 9 years ago

Currently, pool4 can contain addresses that do not belong to its node, which is confusing.

$ ip addr add 192.0.2.1/24 dev eth0
$ ip addr add 192.0.2.2/24 dev eth0
$ ip addr add 192.0.2.3/24 dev eth0
$ jool --pool4 --add 192.0.2.2 # OK
$ jool --pool4 --add 192.0.2.3 # OK
$ jool --pool4 --add 192.0.2.4 # Not OK!

Applies to both 3.2 and 3.3. Stateful NAT64 only.

Thanks to Edgar Rodríguez Bernal for reporting this.

toreanderson commented 9 years ago

Disagree. The upstream router may very well route the pool4 addresses/prefixes to the Jool node (for example in the above case: upstream-router$ ip -4 route add 192.0.2.4/32 via 192.0.2.1), there is no requirement that these addresses are assigned to any local interface. As long as the packets reach the Jool node, you're good to go. The same thing goes for pool6, and also for stateless mode (including pool6791).

I've never configured any of the addresses assigned to Jool to any local interface and that works just great. Being forced to do otherwise so would just be annoying, to be honest.

ydahhrk commented 9 years ago

Thank you.

Since I'm so married to lab testing, It never crossed my mind that you can get away without ARPing the pool4 addresses.

Closing.

mcr commented 9 years ago

Tore Anderson notifications@github.com wrote:

Disagree. The upstream router may very well route the pool4 addresses/prefixes to the Jool node (for example in the above case: upstream-router$ ip -4 route add 192.0.2.4/32 via 192.0.2.1), there is

I agree.