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
"Andrey V. Elsukov" wrote
in
,:
ae> On 16.12.2016 03:24, Anderson Soares Ferreira wrote:
ae> > I have a freebsd 11 box running as my network gateway and I’m having
ae> > some trouble trying to route ipv6 packets through an interface with
ae> > only linklocal address. In short, what I’m doing i
On 16.12.2016 03:24, Anderson Soares Ferreira wrote:
> I have a freebsd 11 box running as my network gateway and I’m having
> some trouble trying to route ipv6 packets through an interface with
> only linklocal address. In short, what I’m doing is:
>
> My freebsd gateway has one global scope addre
Hello,
I have a freebsd 11 box running as my network gateway and I’m having some
trouble trying to route ipv6 packets through an interface with only linklocal
address.
In short, what I’m doing is:
My freebsd gateway has one global scope address on lo0 interface, each other
interface has only a
Hello,
I alread consulted freebsd-questions@ [1] but I have remained
unsuccessful to solve the following issue. In case this is something
obvious, please bear with me. I am not a professional, it's just my
hobby to play around with computers.
1: http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160519124
>> Has anyone seen this before?
> Fixed in 9 by r257389 (So you should try either stable or 10.x).
Thanks a lot! I'll schedule an upgrade.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, se
On 08.01.2015 02:14, Przemyslaw Frasunek wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> We are running FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE-p3 on few PPPoE access servers, each
> servicing about 1000 customers. Each server exchanges customers' /32 (for
> IPv4)
> and /64 (for IPv6) routes using OSPF and BIRD.
>
> Few times in a month, we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I use mpd5 v4 and v6 in freebsd 10.0 and 10.1, I had no problem just
like your for now.
On 01/08/2015 09:54 AM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> On 1/7/2015 6:14 PM, Przemyslaw Frasunek wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> We are running FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE-p3 on few PPP
On 1/7/2015 6:14 PM, Przemyslaw Frasunek wrote:
Dear all,
We are running FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE-p3 on few PPPoE access servers, each
servicing about 1000 customers. Each server exchanges customers' /32 (for IPv4)
and /64 (for IPv6) routes using OSPF and BIRD.
Few times in a month, we are experienc
Dear all,
We are running FreeBSD 9.2-RELEASE-p3 on few PPPoE access servers, each
servicing about 1000 customers. Each server exchanges customers' /32 (for IPv4)
and /64 (for IPv6) routes using OSPF and BIRD.
Few times in a month, we are experiencing routing table corruption, which causes
spuriou
On Fri, October 1, 2010 8:31 am, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> "Dan Langille" wrote
> in <0a85d5595ffdc548668406d3e87621c2.squir...@nyi.unixathome.org>:
>
> da> > Can you show the results of "ifconfig fxp1"?
> da>
> da> # ifconfig fxp1
> da> fxp1: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu
> 1500
> da> options=9
"Dan Langille" wrote
in <0a85d5595ffdc548668406d3e87621c2.squir...@nyi.unixathome.org>:
da> > Can you show the results of "ifconfig fxp1"?
da>
da> # ifconfig fxp1
da> fxp1: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
da> options=9
da> ether 00:04:ac:d3:70:12
da> inet 10.55.0.1 netmask
t 2001:470:1f07:b80::/64: gateway fxp1
>
> I do not think this is needed if you did "ifconfig fxp1 inet6
> 2001:470:1f07:b80::1/64".
>
> Dan Langille wrote
> in <4ca56123.2030...@langille.org>:
>
> da> However, clients on my LAN are unable to get an
server:
da>
da> # route -n add -inet6 2001:470:1f07:b80::/64 -interface fxp1
da> add net 2001:470:1f07:b80::/64: gateway fxp1
I do not think this is needed if you did "ifconfig fxp1 inet6
2001:470:1f07:b80::1/64".
Dan Langille wrote
in <4ca56123.2030...@langille.org>
On 9/30/2010 11:36 PM, Dan Langille wrote:
On 9/30/2010 11:06 PM, Dan Langille wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm setting up IPv6 at home. On the gateway, I can ping6 just fine. But
not from within the LAN.
I have:
Routed /48: 2001:470:8a86::/48
Routed /64: 2001:470:1f07:b80::/64
On the gateway, I have th
vd.conf
fxp1:\
:addr="2001:470:1f07:b80::":prefixlen#64:
In this regard, the handbook may require updating.
However, clients on my LAN are unable to get any IPv6 routing
information despite having ipv6_enable="YES" in /etc/rc.conf.
Running rtsol on the client doesn
On 9/30/2010 11:06 PM, Dan Langille wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm setting up IPv6 at home. On the gateway, I can ping6 just fine. But
not from within the LAN.
I have:
Routed /48: 2001:470:8a86::/48
Routed /64: 2001:470:1f07:b80::/64
On the gateway, I have this:
# cat /etc/rtadvd.conf
fxp1:\
:addrs#1:
Hi folks,
I'm setting up IPv6 at home. On the gateway, I can ping6 just fine.
But not from within the LAN.
I have:
Routed /48: 2001:470:8a86::/48
Routed /64: 2001:470:1f07:b80::/64
On the gateway, I have this:
# cat /etc/rtadvd.conf
fxp1:\
:addrs#1:addr="2001:470:1f07:b80::":prefix
Rob Gallagher wrote
in <1d7a7b9d0907020855s469dc3f1x34e7515f1ea6e...@mail.gmail.com>:
ro> The only odd thing I can see is that the machine is not getting an
ro> IPv6 address on the lan-facing interface, which would explain why it
ro> can't route anything. There are no issues with the sixxs tunn
Hi,
I previously had a freebsd 7.0 box set up as an IPv6 router for my
home network, behind a sixxs tunnel. It was running rtadvd to hand out
IPv6 addresses from my sixxs block to the network.
However, after migrating this configuration over to a newly installed
FreeBSD 7.2 box it appears that th
2008/12/19 Max Laier :
> On Friday 19 December 2008 01:11:51 Ivan Voras wrote:
>> Max Laier wrote:
>> > On the interface you are running rtadvd you need a global address out of
>> > your stf prefix, e.g. 2002:aabb:ccdd:1::/64. Once you do that,
>> > everything else should just fall into place. Th
On Friday 19 December 2008 01:11:51 Ivan Voras wrote:
> Max Laier wrote:
> > On the interface you are running rtadvd you need a global address out of
> > your stf prefix, e.g. 2002:aabb:ccdd:1::/64. Once you do that,
> > everything else should just fall into place. The client will configure
> > a
Max Laier wrote:
> On the interface you are running rtadvd you need a global address out of your
> stf prefix, e.g. 2002:aabb:ccdd:1::/64. Once you do that, everything else
> should just fall into place. The client will configure an address out of
> that
> prefix and adds a route via 2002:aa
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Ivan Voras wrote:
>> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>>> Ivan Voras wrote:
>>>
As far as I understand ipv6 (very little), this basically says the
router told the client it can't send packets to outside addresses with
source addresses that are link-local. Is this correct
Ivan Voras wrote:
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> Ivan Voras wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I understand ipv6 (very little), this basically says the
>>> router told the client it can't send packets to outside addresses with
>>> source addresses that are link-local. Is this correct?
>> I don't know much about 6
On Thursday 18 December 2008 23:08:12 Ivan Voras wrote:
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
> > Ivan Voras wrote:
> >> As far as I understand ipv6 (very little), this basically says the
> >> router told the client it can't send packets to outside addresses with
> >> source addresses that are link-local. Is thi
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Ivan Voras wrote:
>
>> As far as I understand ipv6 (very little), this basically says the
>> router told the client it can't send packets to outside addresses with
>> source addresses that are link-local. Is this correct?
>
> I don't know much about 6to4. All of my IPv6 is
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Ivan Voras wrote:
>
>> The last line correctly lists the link-local ipv6 address of the router.
>> This looks ok, except attempts to actually use ping6 on this address fail:
>>
>> # ping6 fe80::250:8bff:feeb:8401
>> connect: Invalid argument
>
> Oh, and I've found in the p
Ivan Voras wrote:
> The last line correctly lists the link-local ipv6 address of the router.
> This looks ok, except attempts to actually use ping6 on this address fail:
>
> # ping6 fe80::250:8bff:feeb:8401
> connect: Invalid argument
Oh, and I've found in the past that FreeBSD requires you to a
Ivan Voras wrote:
> As far as I understand ipv6 (very little), this basically says the
> router told the client it can't send packets to outside addresses with
> source addresses that are link-local. Is this correct?
I don't know much about 6to4. All of my IPv6 is native, but what you are
saying
Hi,
I'm experimenting with IPv6 and have 6to4 running on a machine (thanks
to Hajimu UMEMOTO). I'm now trying to configure another system on a LAN,
running Linux, to use the 6to4 one as a IPv6 router. I've configured
ipv6 forwarding on the router, and started rtadvd. The client machine
apparently
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 01:47 pm, paul van den bergen wrote:
>
> I know it is rather Naff replying to your own post, but I tried something
> and wanted to share...
and now super-naff...
I made a mistake...
this only works with route6d running on the central box...
turn route6d off and no ping...
--
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:48 am, paul van den bergen wrote:
> static routes.
>
> I imagine that if I do;
>
> on box1
> route add -inet6 -net fec0:0:0:2:: -prefixlen 64 -host fec0:0:0:1::2
>
> on box3
> route add -inet6 -net fec0:0:0:1:: -prefixlen 64 -host fec0:0:0:2::1
>
> and on box 2
> sysctl net.in
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 04:20 pm, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> If memory serves me right, paul van den bergen wrote:
> > I am attempting to set up some static ipv6 routes on my little network.
> >
> > example:
> >
> > box1 - fec0:0:0:1::1 fec0:0:0:1::2 - box 2 (router) -
> > fec0:0:0:2::1 f
If memory serves me right, paul van den bergen wrote:
> I am attempting to set up some static ipv6 routes on my little network.
>
> example:
>
> box1 - fec0:0:0:1::1 fec0:0:0:1::2 - box 2 (router) - fec0:0:0:2:1
> fec0:0:0:2:2 - box 3
>
> I want to reach from box 1 to box 3
Hi all,
I am attempting to set up some static ipv6 routes on my little network.
example:
box1 - fec0:0:0:1::1 fec0:0:0:1::2 - box 2 (router) - fec0:0:0:2:1
fec0:0:0:2:2 - box 3
I want to reach from box 1 to box 3
no route6d or anything... this is a really simple network.
s
51 matches
Mail list logo
