LAN mode = Computer: IPv6 still Router
The Turris MOX is advertised to play Wi-Fi Access Point as well. For example, I have a Module A + Wi-Fi Upgrade, I arrive to a hotel room and there is just Ethernet. I plug in my Turris MOX and it plays Wi-Fi Access Point (Bridge = no NAT, no DHCP). For this, I go for the Host Computer mode in Foris. In that mode, a Turris device turns into a LAN client in IPv4 as expected. However in IPv6, my Turris device is in Router mode.
- Turris MOX module A, reset via Rescue Mode 6 (Turris OS 4.0.5, Foris 100.7)
- Step Guide Workflow: Local Server
- Step Network Interface: no WAN
- Step LAN: Mode: Computer
The originating problem are the defaults of OpenWRT… Turris Foris has to fix/change this otherwise the Turris device sends out IPv6 router advertisements.
One approach (A) would be to change those defaults, for example in the file /etc/sysctl.conf
:
net.ipv6.conf.br-lan.forwarding = 0
net.ipv6.conf.br-lan.accept_ra = 1
Another approach (B) would be to disable IPv6 completely, again in the file /etc/sysctl.conf
:
net.ipv6.conf.br-lan.disable_ipv6 = 1
Another approach (C), mentioned in the Community Forum, would be to stop the service odhcpd
(not tested).
Because as an external contributor, I cannot decide which path (A or B or C) to go, I cannot create a Merge Request. Furthermore, I am unsure about net.ipv6.conf.br-lan.accept_ra
. Its default might be wrong and therefore an upstream issue. In that case, that (part of the) issue has to be reported and discussed upstream in the OpenWRT project. net.ipv6.conf.br-lan.forwarding
must be changed in Host Computer mode anyway.
Marked confidentially because I am not sure if that scenario is supported by Turris Foris at all. I have a degree in Computer Science, played with OpenWRT and WiFi access points for 15 years, read the advertisement for Turris MOX, and used the Web interface of Foris. With that education and experience, I draw the conclusion that when I select LAN mode = Computer, I get a host computer and not a router anymore.
If this is not a issue report but a feature request, I would be happy to know what the intended approach should have been.