Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: mynetworks support for ipv6 link local (fe80) hosts

Expand Messages
  • DTNX Postmaster
    ... Have you tried it with [fe80::]/64 ? See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address#IPv6 Cya, Jona
    Message 1 of 15 , Jun 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On Jun 1, 2012, at 18:35, Derek Atkins wrote:

      > Hey Louis!
      >
      > Louis Kowolowski <louisk@...> writes:
      >
      >> On May 31, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
      >>
      >>> ...
      >>> Here is the mynetworks configuration:
      >>>
      >>> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 1.2.3.4/24 192.168.1.0/24 [2001:1234:1234::]/48
      >>> [fe80::]/10 [fe80::%eth0]/10 [::1]/128
      >>>
      >>
      >> Have you tried reducing it to simply:
      >> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 1.2.3.4/24 192.168.1.0/24 [2001:1234:1234::]/48 [::1]/128 [fe80::]/10
      >
      > Yes, I have. In fact that was the first thing I tried, but it didn't
      > work. I added the interface descriptor on the theory that it was
      > outputting it so therefore it might want it. Obviously that didn't
      > help, either.

      Have you tried it with '[fe80::]/64'? See;

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address#IPv6

      Cya,
      Jona
    • Viktor Dukhovni
      ... See http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2010-11/thread.html#295 Postfix does not AFAIK support link-local address scopes. -- Viktor.
      Message 2 of 15 , Jun 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:35:54PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:

        > >> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 1.2.3.4/24 192.168.1.0/24 [2001:1234:1234::]/48
        > >> [fe80::]/10 [fe80::%eth0]/10 [::1]/128
        >
        > Yes, I have. In fact that was the first thing I tried, but it didn't
        > work. I added the interface descriptor on the theory that it was
        > outputting it so therefore it might want it. Obviously that didn't
        > help, either.

        See http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2010-11/thread.html#295
        Postfix does not AFAIK support link-local address scopes.

        --
        Viktor.
      • Derek Atkins
        ... Yes, I have. With and without the %eth0. I have found no configuration that is accepted and matches with the actual address. ... -derek -- Derek Atkins,
        Message 3 of 15 , Jun 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          DTNX Postmaster <postmaster@...> writes:

          > On Jun 1, 2012, at 18:35, Derek Atkins wrote:
          >
          >> Hey Louis!
          >>
          >> Louis Kowolowski <louisk@...> writes:
          >>
          >>> On May 31, 2012, at 3:44 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
          >>>
          >>>> ...
          >>>> Here is the mynetworks configuration:
          >>>>
          >>>> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 1.2.3.4/24 192.168.1.0/24 [2001:1234:1234::]/48
          >>>> [fe80::]/10 [fe80::%eth0]/10 [::1]/128
          >>>>
          >>>
          >>> Have you tried reducing it to simply:
          >>> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 1.2.3.4/24 192.168.1.0/24 [2001:1234:1234::]/48 [::1]/128 [fe80::]/10
          >>
          >> Yes, I have. In fact that was the first thing I tried, but it didn't
          >> work. I added the interface descriptor on the theory that it was
          >> outputting it so therefore it might want it. Obviously that didn't
          >> help, either.
          >
          > Have you tried it with '[fe80::]/64'? See;
          >
          > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link-local_address#IPv6

          Yes, I have. With and without the %eth0. I have found no configuration
          that is accepted and matches with the actual address.

          > Cya,
          > Jona

          -derek

          --
          Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
          Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
          URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
          warlord@... PGP key available
        • Derek Atkins
          ... Thanks for the link, Viktor. That was back in 2010; has Wietse not fixed this since then? I d rather lose the ability to differentiate between different
          Message 4 of 15 , Jun 1, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Viktor Dukhovni <postfix-users@...> writes:

            > On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:35:54PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
            >
            >> >> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 1.2.3.4/24 192.168.1.0/24 [2001:1234:1234::]/48
            >> >> [fe80::]/10 [fe80::%eth0]/10 [::1]/128
            >>
            >> Yes, I have. In fact that was the first thing I tried, but it didn't
            >> work. I added the interface descriptor on the theory that it was
            >> outputting it so therefore it might want it. Obviously that didn't
            >> help, either.
            >
            > See http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2010-11/thread.html#295
            > Postfix does not AFAIK support link-local address scopes.

            Thanks for the link, Viktor. That was back in 2010; has Wietse not
            fixed this since then? I'd rather lose the ability to differentiate
            between different links (and lose the ability to send to link local
            addresses) than not be able to say link-local hosts are part of
            mynetworks. I'll note that it's unlikely that we could send to a
            link-local address anyways because there's really no way to put that
            into DNS, so we're not actually losing anything by that. As for the
            ability to differentiate between different links, that would only be an
            issue for hosts with multiple interfaces. Again, I don't consider that
            a big issue.

            I would suggest that Wietse go ahead with his initial suggestion and
            remove the link scope so he can continue to use the existing v6 address
            matching logic. While it's not 100% "correct" to do this, I think the
            benefits far outweigh the drawbacks (the main drawback in my case being
            rejected mail!)

            Wietse?

            -derek

            --
            Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
            Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
            URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
            warlord@... PGP key available
          • Derek Atkins
            ... For the record, this appears to have been fixed somewhere between 2.7 and 2.9; I just backported 2.9.2 to my mail server and using mynetworks = [fe80::]/10
            Message 5 of 15 , Jun 1, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Viktor Dukhovni <postfix-users@...> writes:

              > On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:35:54PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
              >
              >> >> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 1.2.3.4/24 192.168.1.0/24 [2001:1234:1234::]/48
              >> >> [fe80::]/10 [fe80::%eth0]/10 [::1]/128
              >>
              >> Yes, I have. In fact that was the first thing I tried, but it didn't
              >> work. I added the interface descriptor on the theory that it was
              >> outputting it so therefore it might want it. Obviously that didn't
              >> help, either.
              >
              > See http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2010-11/thread.html#295
              > Postfix does not AFAIK support link-local address scopes.

              For the record, this appears to have been fixed somewhere between 2.7
              and 2.9; I just backported 2.9.2 to my mail server and using
              mynetworks = [fe80::]/10 works as I would expect it to.

              Sorry for the noise, and thanks for the pointer to the history. That
              helped point me into looking at current sources to see if it's any
              different (which it is, obviously).

              Also, thank you, Wietse! I'm sorry I ever doubted you. :)
              I'll buy you a beer next time I see you.

              -derek
              --
              Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
              Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
              URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
              warlord@... PGP key available
            • Wietse Venema
              ... Postfix has never output interface descriptor information unless some helpful port maintainer added support to improve this. ... Postfix has always
              Message 6 of 15 , Jun 2, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Derek Atkins:
                > Viktor Dukhovni <postfix-users@...> writes:
                >
                > > On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:35:54PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
                > >
                > >> >> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 1.2.3.4/24 192.168.1.0/24 [2001:1234:1234::]/48
                > >> >> [fe80::]/10 [fe80::%eth0]/10 [::1]/128
                > >>
                > >> Yes, I have. In fact that was the first thing I tried, but it didn't
                > >> work. I added the interface descriptor on the theory that it was
                > >> outputting it so therefore it might want it. Obviously that didn't
                > >> help, either.

                Postfix has never output interface descriptor information unless some
                helpful port maintainer added support to 'improve' this.

                > > See http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2010-11/thread.html#295
                > > Postfix does not AFAIK support link-local address scopes.
                >
                > For the record, this appears to have been fixed somewhere between 2.7
                > and 2.9; I just backported 2.9.2 to my mail server and using
                > mynetworks = [fe80::]/10 works as I would expect it to.

                Postfix has always wortked this way unless some helpful port maintainer
                added support to break this.

                Wietse
              • Derek Atkins
                ... Yes, it did, and it had nothing to do with a helpful port maintainer . E.g. this output: May 31 15:55:31 mail2 postfix/smtpd[29712]: connect from
                Message 7 of 15 , Jun 2, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Wietse Venema <wietse@...> writes:

                  > Derek Atkins:
                  >> Viktor Dukhovni <postfix-users@...> writes:
                  >>
                  >> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:35:54PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
                  >> >
                  >> >> >> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 1.2.3.4/24 192.168.1.0/24 [2001:1234:1234::]/48
                  >> >> >> [fe80::]/10 [fe80::%eth0]/10 [::1]/128
                  >> >>
                  >> >> Yes, I have. In fact that was the first thing I tried, but it didn't
                  >> >> work. I added the interface descriptor on the theory that it was
                  >> >> outputting it so therefore it might want it. Obviously that didn't
                  >> >> help, either.
                  >
                  > Postfix has never output interface descriptor information unless some
                  > helpful port maintainer added support to 'improve' this.

                  Yes, it did, and it had nothing to do with a "helpful port maintainer".
                  E.g. this output:

                  May 31 15:55:31 mail2 postfix/smtpd[29712]: connect from unknown[fe80::20c:29ff:fecf:7df0%eth0]

                  Notice the "%eth0" at the end of the link-local address? This has
                  nothing to do with the "port" and everything to do with postfix and how
                  it interpretted the IP->string conversion. Indeed, Fedora pretty much
                  takes postfix as-is and applies very few patches. Note that this log
                  message was with postfix-2.7.7.

                  >> > See http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2010-11/thread.html#295
                  >> > Postfix does not AFAIK support link-local address scopes.
                  >>
                  >> For the record, this appears to have been fixed somewhere between 2.7
                  >> and 2.9; I just backported 2.9.2 to my mail server and using
                  >> mynetworks = [fe80::]/10 works as I would expect it to.
                  >
                  > Postfix has always wortked this way unless some helpful port maintainer
                  > added support to break this.

                  Again, I beg to differ. It has NOT always worked this way (see
                  above). In fact, this diff between 2.7.7 and 2.9.2 shows exactly how is
                  has NOT always worked that way and how you fixed it:

                  --- postfix-2.7.7/src/smtpd/smtpd_peer.c 2008-04-28 20:06:08.0000
                  00000 -0400
                  +++ postfix-2.9.2/src/smtpd/smtpd_peer.c 2012-01-02 19:57:59.0000
                  00000 -0500
                  @@ -225,6 +226,14 @@
                  state->port = mystrdup(client_port.buf);

                  /*
                  + * XXX Strip off the IPv6 datalink suffix to avoid false alarms with
                  + * strict address syntax checks.
                  + */
                  +#ifdef HAS_IPV6
                  + (void) split_at(client_addr.buf, '%');
                  +#endif
                  +
                  + /*
                  * We convert IPv4-in-IPv6 address to 'true' IPv4 address early on,
                  * but only if IPv4 support is enabled (why would anyone want to turn
                  * it off)? With IPv4 support enabled we have no need for the IPv6


                  And I'm pretty sure that this is the patch (to postfix!) that fixed the
                  problem for me. Once I upgraded from 2.7.7 to 2.9.2 not only did my
                  configuration suddenly start working, but lo and behold the log messages
                  changed, too! E.g.:

                  Jun 2 04:10:02 mail2 postfix/smtpd[2315]: connect from unknown[fe80::20c:29ff:fe4e:1302]

                  Notice the lack of the "%eth0" in this log message? The only change
                  between this log message and the previous log message (above) is
                  upgrading postfix from 2.7.7 to 2.9.2, so I would say it is EXACTLY
                  postfix that changed, and nothing more.

                  So again, thank you for fixing it somewhere between 2.7.7 and 2.9.2,
                  because contrary to what you imply ipv6 link local addresses have not
                  "always worked this way" (in postfix).

                  Enjoy! (and thank you, even if you maintain you didn't fix it)

                  > Wietse

                  -derek

                  --
                  Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
                  Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
                  URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
                  warlord@... PGP key available
                • Viktor Dukhovni
                  ... You re right. From the Postfix HISTORY file: 20101108 Workaround: strip off IPv6 datalink suffix from peer address to avoid problems with strict address
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jun 2, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:31:10PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:

                    > And I'm pretty sure that this is the patch (to postfix!) that fixed the
                    > problem for me. Once I upgraded from 2.7.7 to 2.9.2 not only did my
                    > configuration suddenly start working, but lo and behold the log messages
                    > changed, too!

                    You're right. From the Postfix HISTORY file:

                    20101108

                    Workaround: strip off IPv6 datalink suffix from peer address
                    to avoid problems with strict address checking code. Files:
                    smtpd/smtpd_peer.c, qmqpd/qmqpd_peer.c.

                    This change appeared in Postfix 2.8-20101126, thus official releases
                    starting with 2.8.0 partly support link-local IPv6 addresses.

                    --
                    Viktor.
                  • Wietse Venema
                    For the record: mynetworks has always supported net/mask notation. I did not notice that your problem was in client hostname lookup. Wietse
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jun 3, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      For the record: mynetworks has always supported net/mask notation.
                      I did not notice that your problem was in client hostname lookup.

                      Wietse
                    • Derek Atkins
                      ... Of course, but that wasn t what I was talking about, and it never was. I was talking about permit_mynetworks working properly with an ipv6 link local
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jun 4, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Wietse Venema <wietse@...> writes:

                        > For the record: mynetworks has always supported net/mask notation.

                        Of course, but that wasn't what I was talking about, and it never was.
                        I was talking about "permit_mynetworks" working properly with an ipv6
                        link local address specified in mynetworks, and *that* wasn't working
                        due the extraneous "%eth0" in the address from the Linux "AddrToString"
                        functions.

                        > I did not notice that your problem was in client hostname lookup.

                        I'm not sure I'd classify it as "hostname lookup" but more as "link
                        local address matching". But whatever. It's working in 2.9, which is
                        all I really care about.

                        Thanks,

                        > Wietse

                        -derek

                        --
                        Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
                        Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
                        URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
                        warlord@... PGP key available
                      • Wietse Venema
                        ... You stated that (permit)mynetworks should support link-local suffixes (they never did, and to this date thet don t). Instead, when I learned that such
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jun 6, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Derek Atkins:
                          > Wietse Venema <wietse@...> writes:
                          >
                          > > For the record: mynetworks has always supported net/mask notation.
                          >
                          > Of course, but that wasn't what I was talking about, and it never was.
                          > I was talking about "permit_mynetworks" working properly with an ipv6
                          > link local address specified in mynetworks, and *that* wasn't working
                          > due the extraneous "%eth0" in the address from the Linux "AddrToString"
                          > functions.

                          You stated that (permit)mynetworks should support link-local suffixes
                          (they never did, and to this date thet don't). Instead, when I
                          learned that such suffixes crept into Postfix via non-Postfix library
                          routines, I added code to strip them.

                          Wietse
                        • Derek Atkins
                          ... Actually it was someone else that said postfix should support link-local suffixes. That conversation happened in 2010, well before I joined this list. I
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jun 7, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Wietse Venema <wietse@...> writes:

                            > Derek Atkins:
                            >> Wietse Venema <wietse@...> writes:
                            >>
                            >> > For the record: mynetworks has always supported net/mask notation.
                            >>
                            >> Of course, but that wasn't what I was talking about, and it never was.
                            >> I was talking about "permit_mynetworks" working properly with an ipv6
                            >> link local address specified in mynetworks, and *that* wasn't working
                            >> due the extraneous "%eth0" in the address from the Linux "AddrToString"
                            >> functions.
                            >
                            > You stated that (permit)mynetworks should support link-local suffixes
                            > (they never did, and to this date thet don't). Instead, when I
                            > learned that such suffixes crept into Postfix via non-Postfix library
                            > routines, I added code to strip them.

                            Actually it was someone else that said postfix should support link-local
                            suffixes. That conversation happened in 2010, well before I joined this
                            list. I just wanted link-local matching to work with
                            (permit)mynetworks, which it didn't in 2.7.7 (due to the suffixes), but
                            does in 2.9.2 because you added the code to strip the suffixes. I never
                            had a preference as to *how* the address matching would work. :)

                            But again, thank you for adding that code. I'm a happy postfix user
                            (again).

                            > Wietse

                            -derek

                            --
                            Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
                            Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
                            URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
                            warlord@... PGP key available
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.