tags 514644 moreinfo
thanks
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:03:06AM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 08:36:49PM +0100, Piotr Lewandowski wrote:
> > Package: linux-image-2.6.26-1-686
> > Version: 2.6.26-13
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > #v+
> > # dev="wire"
> > # ip link set $dev down
> > # sysctl -w net.ipv6.conf.$dev.use_tempaddr=2
> > net.ipv6.conf.wire.use_tempaddr = 2
> > # sysctl -w net.ipv6.conf.$dev.max_desync_factor=0
> > net.ipv6.conf.wire.max_desync_factor = 0
> > # sysctl -w net.ipv6.conf.$dev.temp_valid_lft=9
> > net.ipv6.conf.wire.temp_valid_lft = 9
> > # sysctl -w net.ipv6.conf.$dev.temp_prefered_lft=6
> > net.ipv6.conf.wire.temp_prefered_lft = 6
> > # ip address flush dev $dev 2>/dev/null
> > # ip link set $dev up
> > # for x in `seq 1 25`; do sleep 1; ip -6 a sh dev $dev secondary | grep
> > _lft; done
> > valid_lft 9sec preferred_lft 604800sec
> > valid_lft 8sec preferred_lft 604799sec
> > valid_lft 6sec preferred_lft 604797sec
> > valid_lft 5sec preferred_lft 604796sec
> > valid_lft 4sec preferred_lft 604795sec
> > valid_lft 3sec preferred_lft 604794sec
> > valid_lft 2sec preferred_lft 604793sec
> > valid_lft 1sec preferred_lft 604792sec
> > valid_lft 0sec preferred_lft 604791sec
> > valid_lft forever preferred_lft 604790sec
> > valid_lft 4294967294sec preferred_lft 604789sec
> > valid_lft 4294967293sec preferred_lft 604788sec
> > valid_lft 4294967292sec preferred_lft 604787sec
> > valid_lft 4294967291sec preferred_lft 604786sec
> > valid_lft 4294967290sec preferred_lft 604785sec
> > valid_lft 4294967289sec preferred_lft 604784sec
> > valid_lft 4294967288sec preferred_lft 604783sec
> > valid_lft 4294967287sec preferred_lft 604782sec
> > valid_lft 4294967286sec preferred_lft 604781sec
> > valid_lft 4294967285sec preferred_lft 604780sec
> > valid_lft 4294967284sec preferred_lft 604779sec
> > #v-
> >
> > It doesn't seems to be caused by relatively low value of
> > temp_valid_lft, since I've succeed to reproduce this behaviour with
> > temp_valid_lft = 200.
>
> Hi,
> The next release of Debian (6.0, code name Squeeze) will be based
> on 2.6.32. Please test the current 2.6.32 from unstable/testing and tell
> us whether the problem persists. If so, we should report it upstream
> to the kernel.org developers.
>
> The 2.6.32 kernel is available from packages.debian.org and can
> be installed in both Debian stable, testing and unstable
> installations.
Did you test a current kernel?
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100530212442.ga6...@galadriel.inutil.org
