https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
Bjoern A. Zeeb changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|n...@freebsd.org |melif...@freebsd.org
--- Comment
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
Sam Frenick changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaunts_buys...@icloud.com
--- Commen
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #17 from Jamie Landeg-Jones ---
ifconfig_vtnet0_ipv6="inet6 2001:19f0:300:2185::1:1 prefixlen 64 accept_rtadv"
ipv6_activate_all_interfaces="YES"
rtsold_enable="YES"
rtsold_flags="-Fa" # Flags to an IPv6 router solicitation
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
Jamie Landeg-Jones changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ja...@catflap.org
--- Comment
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #15 from Conrad Meyer ---
(In reply to Andrey V. Elsukov from comment #14)
I see, thanks for explaining Andrey.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #14 from Andrey V. Elsukov ---
(In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #13)
> (In reply to Andrey V. Elsukov from comment #7)
> Isn't this patch a bit of a kludge? The existing check for the entry in our
> L2 entry cache should
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #13 from Conrad Meyer ---
(In reply to Andrey V. Elsukov from comment #7)
Isn't this patch a bit of a kludge? The existing check for the entry in our L2
entry cache should be sufficient — why don't we populate LLE cache with on
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
jin...@wide.ad.jp changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jin...@wide.ad.jp
--- Comment #
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #11 from peos42 ---
(In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #8)
RFC 4861 say:
--snip--
If the source address of the packet prompting the solicitation is the
same as one of the addresses assigned to the outgoing interface
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #10 from Conrad Meyer ---
Further (§8.3, Host Specification):
A host receiving a valid redirect SHOULD update its Destination Cache
accordingly so that subsequent traffic goes to the specified target.
...
If the Target
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #9 from Conrad Meyer ---
(In reply to peos42 from comment #6)
Maybe this part?
Router Advertisements contain a list of prefixes used for on-link
determination and/or autonomous address configuration; flags
associated w
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #8 from Conrad Meyer ---
(In reply to peos42 from comment #6)
Could they be more specific in how they think BSD is non-compliant with that
RFC? It's a large document and the critique is not specific.
--
You are receiving this
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #7 from Andrey V. Elsukov ---
Created attachment 199377
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=199377&action=edit
Proposed patch
I just tried to patch, and it seems with this patch I can add on-link route to
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
--- Comment #6 from peos42 ---
Maybe there is a reason why DragonflyBSD fixed it.
The cloud provider in the same support case I started this thread with said:
--snip--
Additionally, if BSD followed RFC compliance for neighbour table disc
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
Andrey V. Elsukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||a...@freebsd.org,
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233283
Bjoern A. Zeeb changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|Affects Many People |Affects Some People
16 matches
Mail list logo
