-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
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
increase GNRC_NETIF_IPV6_ADDRS_NUMOF #20295
Conversation
Should we just increase the default? The default values should be usable, and those who need a memory minimum can still tweak it down. That way it'd also solve an issue in #16840 which otherwise needs a not-quite-kosher filtering of which prefix is the better one at the 6LBR. |
There is no more room left (causing the release specs to fail). It would be nice to be able to add one...
736b429
to
405f139
Compare
I think the philosophy of RIOT is more about keeping it small by default, I would rather get an error saying I need more space (maybe the error message can be improved). It is easier to get to the perfect solution™ that way than silently reserving data that is not being used. If anyone feels strongly in either direction I am happy to support it. I just want the examples/tests to pass the release specs! |
Is that 'something happened' that you now have a global address in addition to the link-local one? Can you share the output of For me this works just fine on
|
I'd say it's about keeping reasonably small defaults, and provided you can get the message through. If every tutorial that's supposed to run on a user's network starts with "Because we don't know your network config, let's be safe and set GNRC_NETIF_IPV6_ADDRS_NUMOF to 4" (or "let's set up an isolated network so we're sure things work"), I think that's where practicality and usability overrules compact defaults. More so if also our own tests have to overwrite it. |
Reducing memory footprint is always much harder than increasing it because you have 1000 little cuts to tweak. I think the default of two addresses is sensible, if you need more you might as well bump that config value. |
Yup, I just didn't have the time to find out why it was added.
The release output has it. I also was able to reproduce it on the
It seems like you don't have the default global address in your |
Also makes sense (up to a point, of we are getting 100s of messages saying why different config values are there it becomes a bit strange). I am happy do either, I would like a solution though since the release has a pretty tight deadline. I guess the downside of setting the config values this way is that overwritten them with just the CLI no longer is a possible. |
There is no such thing as a 'default global address' - looks like you have a border router running in your setup that announces that prefix. You can check
That deadline is entirely set by us. |
Thanks @benpicco for clarifying, it would seem like there is a border router not only somewhere in IOT labs when I was trying to run the tests (and the flash actually worked) but also in locally.
I think that the best way forward would be something like this, if there is already a global address then change the PAN ID or channel and remote the assigned one and replace it with the known. Since this would be a release specs change I think we can close this. |
Contribution description
It seems something happened and we have no available slot for adding an address. This makes the release tests fail.
Here is a solution but maybe someone has something better
Testing procedure
It should be able to add.
Issues/PRs references