On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Dave Taht wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:58 AM Dave Taht wrote:
Here you go! Going to go look at the firewall rules in a sec
I changed the rules to allow 547 and 546, no difference. I even
flushed the ipv6tables rules entirely,
and I'm running without that for a whi
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>
> Dave Taht wrote:
> > hmm... bad udp checksum???
>
> With some capture mechanisms, tcpdump gets bogus values because the hardware
> did the checksums. I wouldn't imagine that we have hardware checksum offload
> on openwrt devices
Dave Taht wrote:
> hmm... bad udp checksum???
With some capture mechanisms, tcpdump gets bogus values because the hardware
did the checksums. I wouldn't imagine that we have hardware checksum offload
on openwrt devices, but could be.
Or it's a real issue.
> :/tmp# 09:12:17.404257 IP6
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:29 AM Anderson, Charles R wrote:
>
> Is udp checksum offload enabled? If so, tcpdump/wireshark won't see
> the actual checksum and assume it is bad.
I imagine it is theoretically offloaded. I DO have an 18.06.1 arm box
now up that IS
getting dhcpv6-pd from comcast
T
Is udp checksum offload enabled? If so, tcpdump/wireshark won't see
the actual checksum and assume it is bad.
On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 09:12:57AM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
> hmm... bad udp checksum???
>
> :/tmp# 09:12:17.404257 IP6 (flowlabel 0xdfff4, hlim 1, next-header UDP
> (17) payload length:
hmm... bad udp checksum???
:/tmp# 09:12:17.404257 IP6 (flowlabel 0xdfff4, hlim 1, next-header UDP
(17) payload length: 159) fe80::20d:b9ff:fe43:a06c.546 >
ff02::1:2.547: [bad udp cksum 0x58f4 -> 0xc4a1!]
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 9:12 AM Dave Taht wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:58 AM Dave Taht
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:58 AM Dave Taht wrote:
>
> Here you go! Going to go look at the firewall rules in a sec
I changed the rules to allow 547 and 546, no difference. I even
flushed the ipv6tables rules entirely,
and I'm running without that for a while. I can certainly imagine
comcast's d
Here you go! Going to go look at the firewall rules in a sec
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:45 AM Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> > Sigh. Once upon a time I used to test this stuff on comcast. So I
> > finally got around to deploying
> > a new 18.06 gateway and
On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Dave Taht wrote:
Sigh. Once upon a time I used to test this stuff on comcast. So I
finally got around to deploying
a new 18.06 gateway and ipv6 is busted with comcast.
Can you please email me output from "tcpdump -n -vvv -i port 546 or
port 547 or icmp6" as your WAN is tr
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 7:21 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:11:17PM -0800, Dave Taht wrote:
>> Some days I just lose it with prefix math. Or maybe we have a bug.
>
> Prefix math, there is no bug.
>
>> So here is a default gateway. So far as I know it is getting a /56
>> act
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:11:17PM -0800, Dave Taht wrote:
> Some days I just lose it with prefix math. Or maybe we have a bug.
Prefix math, there is no bug.
> So here is a default gateway. So far as I know it is getting a /56
> actually, not a /60, but it is requesting a /60 and thus distributin
On 26/11/14 07:40, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
> 2601:c:ce00:9d01 is 2601:000c:ce00:9d01
> 2601:c:ce00:9d1 is 2601:000c:ce00:09d1
>
> So no? :)
The issue is that this is supposedly a /60, and so only addresses in the
range 2601:c:ce00:9d0x::/60 are valid. The question is actually about
how Cer
>default from :: via fe80::201:5cff:ee62:b646 dev ge00 proto static
>metric 1024
># should I even have a default route at all?
The source on this is actually ::/128 so it's not a default route in the sense
that it will forward arbitrary traffic through it. It is needed for IPv6
packets that o
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Steven Barth wrote:
> Normally it should work as soon as the 2 conditions: router has any default
> route and interface has a public prefix are satisfied. Can't see anything
> obviously wrong here. Hmm will have a look later again.
Data point from last night: I g
until very recently I was using the dnsmasq version of the RA stuff,
(basically uncommenting
everything in /etc/dnsmasq.conf )
I was under the impression that what I'd had switched to worked, but didn't
try this scenario. (it seems to work on the default gw box, but not internally)
I tend to pret
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > After struggling a while with odhcpd and route propagation I wanted to
> > report that I got ipv6 working with the following config for 6relayd.
>
> I am under the impression that 6relayd is now obsolete and that these
> are controlled in the /etc/config/dhcp file.
>
Tha
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:15:13AM +0100, Vincent Frentzel wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> After struggling a while with odhcpd and route propagation I wanted to
> report that I got ipv6 working with the following config for 6relayd.
I am under the impression that 6relayd is now obsolete and that these
Hi Dave,
On Feb 8, 2014, at 04:52 , Dave Taht wrote:
>
> On Feb 7, 2014 10:46 AM, "Sebastian Moeller" wrote:
> >
> > Hi Mikael, hi Dave,
> >
> > On Feb 7, 2014, at 19:33 , Dave Taht wrote:
> >
> > > get rid of the fd route, and or try traceroute with the -s option
> >
> > So on cerow
Hi Mikael, hi Dave,
On Feb 7, 2014, at 19:33 , Dave Taht wrote:
> get rid of the fd route, and or try traceroute with the -s option
So on cerowrt (as secondary router) "traceroute ipv6.google.com" works
just as well as traceroute -s my_wan_interface_IP6 ipv6.google.com. From the
linux
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Fred Stratton wrote:
> You used ping, not ping6, from what you posted.
Right.
root@cerowrt:~# ping6 comcast6.net
PING comcast6.net (2001:558:fe16:7:69:252:216:215): 56 data bytes
^C
--- comcast6.net ping statistics ---
11 packets transmitted, 0 packets received
No, you did not managed to get ipv6 addrs assigned on even the
gateway. How you got an addr assigned for ipv6 dns is puzzling.
grump. Well, something broke between last feburary (when this worked
in comcast's lab), and today (deployment). I am trying to get ipv6 at
a location here in california th
You used ping, not ping6, from what you posted.
On 21/12/13 17:13, Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
The gui is broken on seeing the wan port. It does look like you got
dns via ipv6.
do an
ip -6 addr show
2: se00: mtu 1500 qlen 1000
inet6 fe8
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> The gui is broken on seeing the wan port. It does look like you got
> dns via ipv6.
>
> do an
>
> ip -6 addr show
2: se00: mtu 1500 qlen 1000
inet6 fe80::100d:7fff:fe64:c60c/64 scope link
valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
3:
The gui is broken on seeing the wan port. It does look like you got
dns via ipv6.
do an
ip -6 addr show
at the prompt and see if you have ipv6 assigned on the ge00 and se00
devices, at the very least. Of course, the big win would be to see it
on all but the gw11 and gw01 interfaces. Have never
Yes, source address dependent routing in main table. Just use from .
Typically on default route.
Add also normal default for source address selection.
Teco
Op 17 aug. 2013 om 16:53 heeft Steven Barth het volgende
geschreven:
> Well lets see how this could help us. I presume this makes ipv6
Well lets see how this could help us. I presume this makes ipv6 source routing
usable without policy rules and distinct tables? Sorry didnt have time to look
into it in more Detail.
As 3.10 has become LTS it would probably be a good candidate for a release.
I hope to start a new Iteration for i
Hello all!
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:21:03PM +0200, Teco Boot wrote:
> The IPv6 subtrees in on its way :-). After 3.11 we can ask for backports.
It is already in davem's stable queue and should be integrated in the next
stable
kernels. If openwrt picks them up, it should show up there, too.
>
The backtraces were not caused by the ip6_subtrees patch. It is Ubuntu that
upgraded me to 3.8.0.28, with some free bugs. I went back to 3.8.0.27. No
problems since then.
Teco
Op 16 aug. 2013, om 23:35 heeft Dave Taht het volgende
geschreven:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Teco
The IPv6 subtrees in on its way :-). After 3.11 we can ask for backports.
I think we need more beers. One reason to go to Vancouver. We should ask the
mptcp folks to join. There howto is far to complex, their own words on sadr:
"Doing the above each time by hand is very cumbersome". Hey, this wa
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Teco Boot wrote:
> The IPv6 subtrees in on its way :-). After 3.11 we can ask for backports.
>
I folded it into cerowrt 3.10.7-1 just now. No noise on the patch. I was
scared by some of the backtraces you posted, so I'd like to keep the
testing simple for a while
Dear Juergen:
Your note kind of opens a can of worms.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Juergen Botz wrote:
> On 08/16/2013 03:06 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> > You need to statically assign addresses on the AHCP server box.
>
> Ok, fair enough... but then why did it work without statically
> assigne
On Aug 24, 2012, at 10:03 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> post your radvd.conf file, please.
Here it is. Thanks.
===
root@OpenWrt:/etc/config# cat radvd
config interface
option interface 'se00'
option AdvSendAdvert '1'
option AdvRouterAddr '1'
option
post your radvd.conf file, please.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Richard Brown
wrote:
> More testing...
>
> I can get sw10 to work (to hand out an IPv6 address), but my MacBook doesn't
> get an IPv6 address when plugged into se00 (the wired interface). I have
> appended the /etc/config/netwo
More testing...
I can get sw10 to work (to hand out an IPv6 address), but my MacBook doesn't
get an IPv6 address when plugged into se00 (the wired interface). I have
appended the /etc/config/network file that I'm using.
I get the same result if the last two lines are changed to:
list
Thanks for the speedy response. I can spend some time gathering data.
I imagine that the script is still necessary for encapsulating the HE.net
credentials. (I guess I could do it from the GUI, but my fingers are really bad
at doing the same thing twice...)
After that, I'd do the option 'adv
It was my hope that the script would be unnecessary in this release,
that you'd be able to do a "adv_subnet" like in 6to4 and be in
business.
option 'adv_subnet' '1'
list 'adv_interface' 'se00'
list 'adv_interface' 'sw00'
etc
I'm not in a position to test hurricane from where I am right now.
On
36 matches
Mail list logo
