Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
#!/bin/sh
|
|
|
|
|
# 6rd.sh - IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel backend
|
|
|
|
|
# Copyright (c) 2010-2012 OpenWrt.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ -n "$INCLUDE_ONLY" ] || {
|
|
|
|
|
. /lib/functions.sh
|
|
|
|
|
. /lib/functions/network.sh
|
|
|
|
|
. ../netifd-proto.sh
|
|
|
|
|
init_proto "$@"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
proto_6rd_setup() {
|
|
|
|
|
local cfg="$1"
|
|
|
|
|
local iface="$2"
|
|
|
|
|
local link="6rd-$cfg"
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-19 07:53:08 +00:00
|
|
|
local mtu df ttl tos ipaddr peeraddr ip6prefix ip6prefixlen ip4prefixlen tunlink zone
|
|
|
|
|
json_get_vars mtu df ttl tos ipaddr peeraddr ip6prefix ip6prefixlen ip4prefixlen tunlink zone
|
Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ -z "$ip6prefix" -o -z "$peeraddr" ] && {
|
2012-06-18 23:08:20 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_notify_error "$cfg" "MISSING_ADDRESS"
|
|
|
|
|
proto_block_restart "$cfg"
|
Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015-03-10 08:43:54 +00:00
|
|
|
( proto_add_host_dependency "$cfg" "$peeraddr" "$tunlink" )
|
2012-06-18 23:08:20 +00:00
|
|
|
|
Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
[ -z "$ipaddr" ] && {
|
2014-04-24 09:11:44 +00:00
|
|
|
local wanif="$tunlink"
|
|
|
|
|
if [ -z $wanif ] && ! network_find_wan wanif; then
|
|
|
|
|
proto_notify_error "$cfg" "NO_WAN_LINK"
|
|
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
fi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if ! network_get_ipaddr ipaddr "$wanif"; then
|
2012-06-18 23:08:20 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_notify_error "$cfg" "NO_WAN_LINK"
|
Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
return
|
|
|
|
|
fi
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Determine the relay prefix.
|
|
|
|
|
local ip4prefixlen="${ip4prefixlen:-0}"
|
2018-01-13 10:05:46 +00:00
|
|
|
local ip4prefix
|
|
|
|
|
eval "$(ipcalc.sh "$ipaddr/$ip4prefixlen")";ip4prefix=$NETWORK
|
Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Determine our IPv6 address.
|
|
|
|
|
local ip6subnet=$(6rdcalc "$ip6prefix/$ip6prefixlen" "$ipaddr/$ip4prefixlen")
|
|
|
|
|
local ip6addr="${ip6subnet%%::*}::1"
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-01-15 13:08:14 +00:00
|
|
|
# Determine the IPv6 prefix
|
|
|
|
|
local ip6lanprefix="$ip6subnet/$(($ip6prefixlen + 32 - $ip4prefixlen))"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_init_update "$link" 1
|
|
|
|
|
proto_add_ipv6_address "$ip6addr" "$ip6prefixlen"
|
2013-01-15 13:08:14 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_add_ipv6_prefix "$ip6lanprefix"
|
2014-01-17 13:59:47 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-05-19 07:53:08 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_add_ipv6_route "::" 0 "::$peeraddr" 4096 "" "$ip6addr/$ip6prefixlen"
|
|
|
|
|
proto_add_ipv6_route "::" 0 "::$peeraddr" 4096 "" "$ip6lanprefix"
|
Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
proto_add_tunnel
|
|
|
|
|
json_add_string mode sit
|
|
|
|
|
json_add_int mtu "${mtu:-1280}"
|
2014-01-23 10:59:04 +00:00
|
|
|
json_add_boolean df "${df:-1}"
|
Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
json_add_int ttl "${ttl:-64}"
|
2014-10-02 19:37:58 +00:00
|
|
|
[ -n "$tos" ] && json_add_string tos "$tos"
|
Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
json_add_string local "$ipaddr"
|
2013-12-15 19:38:53 +00:00
|
|
|
[ -n "$tunlink" ] && json_add_string link "$tunlink"
|
2017-05-18 09:34:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
json_add_object 'data'
|
|
|
|
|
json_add_string prefix "$ip6prefix/$ip6prefixlen"
|
|
|
|
|
json_add_string relay-prefix "$ip4prefix/$ip4prefixlen"
|
|
|
|
|
json_close_object
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_close_tunnel
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014-03-26 10:12:49 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_add_data
|
|
|
|
|
[ -n "$zone" ] && json_add_string zone "$zone"
|
|
|
|
|
proto_close_data
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_send_update "$cfg"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
proto_6rd_teardown() {
|
|
|
|
|
local cfg="$1"
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
proto_6rd_init_config() {
|
|
|
|
|
no_device=1
|
|
|
|
|
available=1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
proto_config_add_int "mtu"
|
2014-01-23 10:59:04 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_config_add_boolean "df"
|
Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_config_add_int "ttl"
|
2014-10-02 19:37:58 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_config_add_string "tos"
|
2012-08-11 00:25:23 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_config_add_string "ipaddr"
|
Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_config_add_string "peeraddr"
|
|
|
|
|
proto_config_add_string "ip6prefix"
|
|
|
|
|
proto_config_add_string "ip6prefixlen"
|
|
|
|
|
proto_config_add_string "ip4prefixlen"
|
2013-12-15 19:38:53 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_config_add_string "tunlink"
|
2014-03-26 10:12:49 +00:00
|
|
|
proto_config_add_string "zone"
|
Add new package for configuring 6rd tunnels.
This patch adds support for manually configuring 6rd tunnels. It depends on
the netifd patches I sent earlier, which add 6rd support.
A basic interface configuration looks like:
config interface 'wan6'
option proto '6rd'
option peeraddr '192.0.2.1'
option ip6prefix '2123::'
option ip6prefixlen '16'
option ip4prefixlen '0'
Where ip4prefixlen is optional and actually defaults to 0, which would use all
bits of the IPv4 in the calculated IPv6 subnet.
I believe it should be possible to configure a regular 6to4 tunnel using this,
and that we may want to merge the two eventually, but there are some larger
differences between the two at the moment:
- 6rd addresses can be more difficult to calculate. My ISP, for example, has
a setup with a v6 mask of 43 bits, and a v4 mask of 19.
- 6to4 has support for configuring radvd. This is something we want, of
course, but it seems best to deal with this in a separate patch.
Just creating a new package looked like the quickest way to get this in.
This work is based on the 6in4 package, and work by Stijn Tintel.
Signed-off-by: Stéphan Kochen <stephan@kochen.nl>
SVN-Revision: 32431
2012-06-18 23:08:18 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ -n "$INCLUDE_ONLY" ] || {
|
|
|
|
|
add_protocol 6rd
|
|
|
|
|
}
|