Thanks for reporting back. I asked you for a routing table dump in my previous email, would you mind emailing it to me privately?
-- Qing > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Pusateri [mailto:pusat...@bangj.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:28 PM > To: Li, Qing > Cc: freebsd-...@freebsd.org; freebsd-stable@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: patch: bad ipv6 neighbor solicitation > > I didn't think this routing patch was related to the "bad neighbor > solicitation messages" as suggested in the subject field but I tried it > anyway. It does not fix my IPv6 problem. I still get "bad neighbor > solicitation messages" and freebsd 8 doesn't respond to 4/5 IPv6 pings. > > Thanks, > Tom > > On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:53 PM, Li, Qing wrote: > > > Please find the more proper fix at > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~qingli/nd6-patch.diff > > > > I realized I was slightly off in my previous email after > > I spent a bit more time looking through the problem. > > Both prefixes are present but one was marked off-link due > > to the fact only a single prefix route was installed in > > the routing table (non RADIX_MPATH system). > > > > I evaluated various options to fixing this issue, however, > > due to the association between NDPRF_ONLINK and the route > > installation, I decided to go with what I have here for > > the time being. > > > > I have verified the fix in my setup. Please apply the > > patch and report back. > > > > Thanks, > > > > -- Qing > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- > >> n...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Li, Qing > >> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 3:00 PM > >> To: Dennis Glatting; JASSAL Aman > >> Cc: freebsd-...@freebsd.org > >> Subject: RE: Understanding multiple IPv6 interfaces under 8.0 (fwd) > >> > >> > >> You don't need to perform all that route-foo. I believe the root > cause > >> of > >> this issue may be due to a bit of regression in the IPv6 prefix > >> management > >> code, and I am in the process of putting together a permanent fix. > >> > >> The issue as it stands today, is due to how the prefix was inserted > in > >> the first place. Since bce0 was configured first, the interface > >> associated > >> with the prefix is bce0. Later the reference count on the prefix is > >> simply incremented when bce1 configures another IPv6 address of the > >> same prefix. > >> > >> When ND6 NS arrives for bce1, due to the interface mismatch of the > >> prefix > >> interface against the input interface, the NS packet was considered > >> invalid and thus dropped. > >> > >> Again, in case you didn't see my earlier reply, try the temporary > hack > >> at > >> http://people.freebsd.org/~qingli/nd6-ns.diff > >> > >> until I commit a permanent patch. The problem was easily > reproducible > >> and > >> I have verified with limited unit testing the patch works. > >> > >> -- Qing > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org on behalf of Dennis Glatting > >> Sent: Mon 12/14/2009 2:03 PM > >> To: JASSAL Aman > >> Cc: freebsd-...@freebsd.org > >> Subject: Re: Understanding multiple IPv6 interfaces under 8.0 (fwd) > >> > >> > >> Thanks. Responses in-line. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, JASSAL Aman wrote: > >> > >>> Hello Mr.Glatting, > >>> > >>> Not that I'm an IPv6 genius, but at first sight your problem seems > > to > >> be a > >>> route-related. I've put comments in-line. > >>> > >>> > >>> Le Dim 13 d?cembre 2009 22:58, Dennis Glatting a ?crit : > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Elmer# netstat -rn > >>>> Routing tables > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Internet6: > >>>> Destination Gateway > >> Flags > >>>> Netif Expire > >>>> ::/96 ::1 > > UGRS > >>>> lo0 => default fd7c:3f2b:e791:1::1 > >>>> UGS bce0 > >>>> ::1 ::1 UH > >>>> lo0 ::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 ::1 > >> UGRS > >>>> lo0 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1::/64 link#1 > >> U > >>>> bce0 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1::ac13:a0a link#1 > >> UHS > >>>> lo0 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a link#2 > >> UHS > >>>> lo0 fe80::/10 ::1 > >> UGRS > >>>> lo0 fe80::%bce0/64 link#1 > >> U > >>>> bce0 fe80::213:72ff:fe60:ac52%bce0 link#1 > >> UHS > >>>> lo0 fe80::%bce1/64 link#2 > >> U > >>>> bce1 fe80::213:72ff:fe60:ac50%bce1 link#2 > >> UHS > >>>> lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 link#3 > >> U > >>>> lo0 fe80::1%lo0 link#3 > >> UHS > >>>> lo0 ff01:1::/32 > fe80::213:72ff:fe60:ac52%bce0 > >> U > >>>> bce0 ff01:2::/32 > > fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a > >> U > >>>> bce1 ff01:3::/32 ::1 > >> U > >>>> lo0 ff02::/16 ::1 > >> UGRS > >>>> lo0 ff02::%bce0/32 > fe80::213:72ff:fe60:ac52%bce0 > >> U > >>>> bce0 ff02::%bce1/32 > > fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a > >> U > >>>> bce1 ff02::%lo0/32 ::1 > >> U > >>>> lo0 > >>>> > >>> > >>> Hmm, the entry for fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a looks suspect. I > > was > >>> expecting bce1 rather than lo0, I suppose you were as well :) If > I'm > >> not > >>> mistaken, the packets emanating from bce1 go to the loopback > >> interface, > >>> thus not really going out. You can try specifying the route > manually > >>> with "route add *your parameters*" or even set it in /etc/rc.conf > so > >>> that it's loaded at boot-time. There's no reason why among 2 > > physical > >>> interfaces sharing the same fabric, one can ship packets out and > the > >>> other can't. > >>> > >> > >> I was wondering about the route however I haven't figured out the > > trick > >> to > >> get what I want. For example: > >> > >> Elmer# route delete -inet6 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a > >> delete host fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a > >> > >> Elmer# route add > >> -inet6 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a/64 -iface bce1 > >> route: writing to routing socket: File exists > >> add net fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a/64: gateway bce1: route > already > >> in table > >> > >> I did delete the lo0 route before I exected the above command. Also, > I > >> haven't been able to specify a higher metric (e.g., -metric 2). That > > is > >> rejected too. However, I can say: > >> > >> Elmer# route delete -inet6 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a > >> delete host fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a > >> > >> Elmer# route add -inet6 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a -iface bce1 > >> add host fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a: gateway bce1 > >> > >> Elmer# netstat -rn > >> (snip) > >> fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a 00:13:72:60:ac:50 UHS > >> bce1 > >> > >> I don't think that is what I want. WHat I think I just said is "host > > X" > >> is > >> out that door, rather than route net. If, however, I say Docs is out > >> that > >> door, I get: > >> > >> Elmer# route add -inet6 docs.dco.penx.com -iface bce1 > >> add host docs.dco.penx.com: gateway bce1 > >> > >> Elmer# ping6 > >> docs.penx.com > >> PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a --> > >> fd7c:3f2b:e791:1::ac13:a15 > >> ping6: sendmsg: Operation not permitted > >> ping6: wrote docs.dco.penx.com 16 chars, ret=-1 > >> > >> > >>>> > >>>> Elmer's rc.config: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ipv6_enable="YES" ipv6_network_interfaces="bce0 bce1" > >>>> ipv6_ifconfig_bce0="FD7C:3F2B:E791:0001::0:172.19.10.10 prefixlen > >> 64" > >>>> ipv6_ifconfig_bce1="FD7C:3F2B:E791:0001::1:172.19.10.10 prefixlen > > 64 > >> mtu > >>>> 8192" > >>>> ipv6_defaultrouter="FD7C:3F2B:E791:0001::1" > >>>> > >>> > >>> Erm... You're using IPv4 addresses encapsulated in IPv6 ? I've > never > >> used > >>> this myself so I can't really comment, and I can't say if there > >> aren't any > >>> sort of "interferences" with what you're trying to do. > >>> > >> > >> I hope what I am specifying is to use the 32 bit IPv4 address as the > >> last > >> 32 bits of the IPv6 address, at least that is how it works out > >> numerically. My numbering scheme for fixed assets is the last 32 > bits > >> of > >> the 128 bit IPv6 address is the same as its IPv4 address. > >> > >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The router (cisco): > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> interface GigabitEthernet0/0 ipv6 address FD7C:3F2B:E791:1::1/64 > >> ipv6 > >>>> enable ipv6 nd prefix FD7C:3F2B:E791:1::/64 (etc) > >>>> > >>> > >>> Just a side-note, I'm not sure if it will be really useful to you, > >> but you > >>> could give it a try if you want to. Have you tried using your Cisco > >> router > >>> as a Router Advertisement Daemon ? That way, addresses would be > > built > >>> automatically and you could see how both interfaces react to such > >>> advertisements. > >>> > >>> I hope this helps. > >>> > >>> ------------ > >>> Aman Jassal > >>> > >>> Wisdom comes from experience. > >>> Experience comes from a lack of wisdom. > >>> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net- > unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> freebsd-...@freebsd.org mailing list > >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net- > unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable- > unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
