If memory serves me right, John Hay wrote: > On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 08:29:36AM -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote: >> I'm observing a problem with IPv6 over gif(4) tunnels on 6.2-RELEASE >> and recent 6-STABLE, namely that I can't seem to be able to pass >> traffic over them. >> >> Essentially, when I configure a gif interface like this: >> >> # ifconfig gif0 inet6 aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd::1 aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd::2 >> prefixlen 128 >> >> the interface should add a host route to aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd::2 >> through gif0. This is necessary to be able to pass traffic over the >> tunnel, particularly since the source and destination addresses of the >> link don't need to have any relationship to each other. > > I only have one IPv6 over IPv4/gif tunnel and ther I use only my side > of the address, something like this: > > ifconfig gif0 inet6 2001:4200:ffff:5::2 prefixlen 64 > > And then bgp on top of this. It seems to work fine on -current built > after my change.
I believe the difference between your situation and mine is that your gif0 interface is setup with a prefixlen < 128, which doesn't specifically require a host route to the interface of the destination. This is actually handled specially in several parts of the IPv6 stack. > Well it seems that even my stuff does not always work perfectly with that > change (1.48.2.15), so maybe we should revert it and I will search for > yet other ways to make FreeBSD's IPv6 code to actually work for our stuff. > > My "stuff" is a wireless IPv6 only network running in adhoc mode with > olsrd as the routing protocol. The problem is that all nodes on a subnet > cannot "see" each other, so olsrd needs to add routes to a node through > another node. Sometimes, just to complicate matters a little more, you > would want to have more than one network card in a host, all with the same > subnet address. (For instance on a high site, with sector antennas.) > > The case that I found that still does not work reliably, is if olsrd add > the route and route is not immediately used, then the nd code will time > it out and remove it. > > So, I guess if you guys think I should revert my stuff, just say so. > > And if you have a solution for my problem, just say so too. :-) This sounds kind of interesting! I'm concerned that this bug seems (at least in my testing) to be present in 6.2-RELEASE. I'm not 100% sure what's the right thing to do at this point. Thanks, Bruce.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
