Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Eugene M. Kim wrote: > > A quick question: Is bridge(4) supposed /not/ to automatically configure an > > IPv6 link-local address? > > yes there is a check for this in the code and if remoed (tried that > lately) more things go wrong. > > > I'm trying to use it to bridge a wired segment and a wireless segment, and > > router advertisement over bridge0 wouldn't work because, with bridge0 > > lacking > > a LL address, the router uses a non-LL address as the source address for > > RA > > packets, which then is ignored as invalid by other IPv6 nodes. > > yes, seem something similar lately but ETIMEOUT on debugging. The > problem basically was: > > lan bridge ath --- wlan client > > the LL address was on the "lan" interface. > > ping6 LL on lan from wlan client did not work. I could see the packets > being bridged and visible on all interfaces and even the router on lan > noticed them but there was no reply going to the client. ping6 from > the bridge ``box'' to the wlan client and everything was fine as nd > was seeded. > > Removing the check we ended up with the same LL address on both bridge > and the lan interface if I can remember correctly and you do not want > that... it's a bit tricky and there is something that does not work as > expected, right. If you find the time to debug it I'll happily test > patches;-)
I seem to be reviving a fairly old thread here, but this is what I found when I went searching for the issue. I am personally bridging a wireless NIC (ath0) with a VLAN interface (vlan10). The bridge does not receive a link-local address. The bridge interface (bridge0) is the default gateway for my LAN, both for v4 and v6. My Mac was logging this message in response to router advertisements: | Apr 10 18:16:54 administrators-imac configd[29]: RTADV_VERIFY_PACKET: | invalid RA with non link-local source from 2001:4830:1679:10::1 on en0 and was refusing to acknowledge them. My solution was to assign a link-local address to bridge0 based on the ethernet address (I think I did the EUI-48 stuff correctly): | bridge0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500 | ether 92:db:a2:b4:8e:ba | inet 10.1.10.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.1.10.255 | inet6 2001:4830:1679:10::1 prefixlen 64 | inet6 fe80::90db:a2ff:feb4:83ba%bridge0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0xc | id 00:00:00:00:00:00 priority 32768 hellotime 2 fwddelay 15 | maxage 20 holdcnt 6 proto rstp maxaddr 100 timeout 1200 | root id 00:00:00:00:00:00 priority 32768 ifcost 0 port 0 According to ifconfig(8): | Basic IPv6 node operation requires a link-local address on each interface | configured for IPv6. Normally, such an address is automatically config- | ured by the kernel on each interface added to the system; this behaviour | may be disabled by setting the sysctl MIB variable | net.inet6.ip6.auto_linklocal to 0. The bridge(4) page does not add any disclaimer about bridge interfaces. Neither man page gives a good how-to on assigning your own link-local address (I guessed and got it right with the % notation). Shouldn't the kernel assign link-local addresses to these interfaces? Should this address be based on the ethernet address of the bridge interface? I'm not sure I really understood the challenges with the implementation. -- Chris Cowart Network Technical Lead Network & Infrastructure Services, RSSP-IT UC Berkeley
pgp7il6F6D7lF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
