On 03/05/2010 07:02 AM, ge...@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> Can you provide more details of your `ipconfig ra6 recvra 1' failure?
> What happens?  What's printed?  What's in /sys/log/v6routeradv (you
> may have to create it first)?

cpu% touch /sys/log/v6routeradv
cpu% ip/ipconfig -6
cpu% ip/ipconfig ra6 recvra 1   # no errors

cpu% tail /sys/log/v6routeradv
helix Mar  6 22:47:11 got initial RA from fe80::21d:7dff:fe58:e11f on
/net/ether0; pfx 2001:470:19:333::
helix Mar  6 23:24:04 recvra6 on /net/ether0
helix Mar  6 23:24:11 sendrs: sent solicitation to ff02::2 from :: on
/net/ether0
helix Mar  6 23:24:11 got initial RA from fe80::21d:7dff:fe58:e11f on
/net/ether0; pfx 2001:470:19:333::
helix Mar  6 23:45:01 recvra6 on /net/ether0
helix Mar  6 23:45:08 sendrs: sent solicitation to ff02::2 from :: on
/net/ether0
helix Mar  6 23:45:08 got initial RA from fe80::21d:7dff:fe58:e11f on
/net/ether0; pfx 2001:470:19:333::
helix Mar  6 23:47:42 recvra6 on /net/ether0
helix Mar  6 23:47:50 sendrs: sent solicitation to ff02::2 from :: on
/net/ether0
helix Mar  6 23:47:50 got initial RA from fe80::21d:7dff:fe58:e11f on
/net/ether0; pfx 2001:470:19:333::

cpu% cat /net/ipselftab
127.0.0.0                                    01 6b
192.168.1.0                                  01 6b
ff02::1                                      02 6m
127.0.0.1                                    01 6u
192.168.1.9                                  01 6u
2001:470:19:333:216:3eff:fe79:c0f7           01 6u
ff02::1:ff79:c0f7                            02 6m
fe80::216:3eff:fe79:c0f7                     01 6u
127.255.255.255                              01 6b
255.255.255.255                              02 6b
192.168.1.255                                01 6b

Everything above seems ok, but...

cpu% cat /net/iproute
0.0.0.0         /96  192.168.1.254   4    none   -
192.168.1.0     /120 192.168.1.0     4i   ifc    0
192.168.1.0     /128 192.168.1.0     4b   ifc    -
192.168.1.9     /128 192.168.1.9     4u   ifc    0
192.168.1.255   /128 192.168.1.255   4b   ifc    -
127.0.0.0       /104 127.0.0.0       4i   ifc    -
127.0.0.0       /128 127.0.0.0       4b   ifc    -
127.0.0.1       /128 127.0.0.1       4u   ifc    -
127.255.255.255 /128 127.255.255.255 4b   ifc    -
255.255.255.255 /128 255.255.255.255 4b   ifc    -
2001:470:19:333:: /64  2001:470:19:333:: 6i   ifc    -
fe80::          /64  fe80::          6i   ifc    -
ff02::          /16  ff02::1         6m   ifc    0
ff02::1         /128 ff02::1         6m   ifc    0
2001:470:19:333:216:3eff:fe79:c0f7 /128
2001:470:19:333:216:3eff:fe79:c0f7 6u   ifc    0
fe80::216:3eff:fe79:c0f7 /128 fe80::216:3eff:fe79:c0f7 6u   ifc    0
ff02::1:ff79:c0f7 /128 ff02::1:ff79:c0f7 6m   ifc    0

I think, the above does not have any default route for IPv6 traffic.

After restarting Plan9, I attempted to try ipv6on script, but no luck :(

cpu% cat /lib/ndb/local
#
#  files comprising the database, use as many as you like, see ndb(6)
#
database=
        file=/lib/ndb/local
        file=/lib/ndb/common

auth=sources.cs.bell-labs.com authdom=outside.plan9.bell-labs.com

#
#  because the public demands the name localsource
#
ip=127.0.0.1 sys=localhost dom=localhost

ipnet=sebs.org.in ip=192.168.1.0 ipmask=255.255.255.0
        dnsdomain=sebs.org.in
        dns=192.168.1.3
        ntp=router
        smtp=router
        authdomain=sebs.org.in
        auth=auth

ip=192.168.1.2 dom=cto.sebs.org.in sys=cto
ip=192.168.1.3 dom=mon.sebs.org.in sys=mon
ip=192.168.1.9 dom=helix.sebs.org.in sys=helix
ip=192.168.1.254 dom=gw0.sebs.org.in sys=gw0

cname=helix.sebs.org.in dom=auth.sebs.org.in sys=auth
cname=helix.sebs.org.in dom=cpu.sebs.org.in sys=cpu
cname=mon.sebs.org.in dom=devel.sebs.org.in sys=devel
cname=cto.sebs.org.in dom=ftp.sebs.org.in sys=ftp
cname=mon.sebs.org.in dom=proxy.sebs.org.in sys=proxy
cname=mon.sebs.org.in dom=www.sebs.org.in sys=www

I can ping xen9 machine from all other machines on private LAN, but
can't ip/ping -6 any from xen9 :(

Whereas, all other machines, Ubuntu, Windows XP/SP3, FreeBSD and
Window-7 are getting IPv6 addresses automatically on a small/home
network from an instance of radvd-1:1.5-1 running on a Debian machine.

> It's not worth supporting any new 10Mb ethernet controllers,
> and new 100Mb ones are borderline.

-- 
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman        Registered Linux User: #229709
Anu'z li...@home (Unix Shoppe)        Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Chandigarh, UT, 160062, India         Plan9, T2, Arch/Debian/FreeBSD/XP
Home: http://werc.homelinux.net/      Visit: http://counter.li.org/

Reply via email to