gt; Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: gif interface not passing IPv6 packets
>
> On 4 October 2011 19:17, Li, Qing wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please download the newer patch from
> >
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~qingli/in6.c.diff
> >
>
On 4 October 2011 19:17, Li, Qing wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please download the newer patch from
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~qingli/in6.c.diff
>
> This patch ought to fix both problems.
Just applied this patch. Yes, this fixes both problems. As far as I
can see now everything is working. So the
ent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 8:23 AM
> To: Matt Smith
> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
> Subject: RE: gif interface not passing IPv6 packets
>
> I believe there is actually another bug needs fixing. Let me confirm
> and will provide
>
interface not passing IPv6 packets
On 4 October 2011 10:48, Matt Smith wrote:
> I have just applied the patch, recompiled the kernel, and rebooted
> with my original configuration in rc.conf and all interfaces have come
> up as expected now. The routes are there, I can ping everything, an
On 4 October 2011 10:48, Matt Smith wrote:
> I have just applied the patch, recompiled the kernel, and rebooted
> with my original configuration in rc.conf and all interfaces have come
> up as expected now. The routes are there, I can ping everything, and I
> can connect to everything as expected.
On 3 October 2011 22:33, Li, Qing wrote:
> Please give the following patch a try and let me know how it
> works out for you.
>
> http://people.freebsd.org/~qingli/in6.c.diff
I have just applied the patch, recompiled the kernel, and rebooted
with my original configuration in rc.conf and all
"Li, Qing" wrote
in
:
qi> >
qi> > Just to let you know that I was doing a lot of testing off of the
qi> > mailing list with Hiroki Sato and we basically discovered that I was
qi> > missing an alias on my lo0 interface. He first advised me to try
qi> > testing with adding a /126 to gif0 rather
>
> Just to let you know that I was doing a lot of testing off of the
> mailing list with Hiroki Sato and we basically discovered that I was
> missing an alias on my lo0 interface. He first advised me to try
> testing with adding a /126 to gif0 rather than a /128 which worked
> successfully. Then
On 3 October 2011 21:42, Li, Qing wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I saw the thread but I was traveling the whole of last week, did not
> have a system to work on.
>
> The problem you encountered on gif was due to a bug in the IPv6 code.
>
> I believe have a patch but I need to do more testing. I will post it s
Hi,
I saw the thread but I was traveling the whole of last week, did not
have a system to work on.
The problem you encountered on gif was due to a bug in the IPv6 code.
I believe have a patch but I need to do more testing. I will post it shortly.
--Qing
> -Original Message-
> From: o
On 26 September 2011 21:00, Mark Atkinson wrote:
> Depending on your release you might need to add
>
> ifconfig gif0 inet6 -ifdisabled
Thanks for the suggestion but this also made no difference. The
problem isn't that the interface is down or disabled, from other
suggestions yesterday it's become
> root@tao[~]# ifconfig vr0 inet6 2a01:348:294::1 prefixlen 64 -alias
> root@tao[~]# ifconfig gif0 destroy
> root@tao[~]# ifconfig gif0
> ifconfig: interface gif0 does not exist
> Internet6:
> Destination Gateway Flags
> Netif Expire
> ::/96
On 26 September 2011 17:05, Gary Palmer wrote:
>
> Not sure, however an experiment may be in order
>
> # ifconfig gif0
> ifconfig: interface gif0 does not exist
> # ifconfig gif0 create
> # ifconfig gif0 tunnel 1.2.3.4
> # ifconfig gif0 inet6 2abc::2 2abc::1 prefixlen 128
> # netstat -nr -f inet
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 04:04:00PM +0100, Matt Smith wrote:
> On 26 September 2011 15:21, Gary Palmer wrote:
> > Smells like a routing table problem or similar configuration problem.
> > On my tunnel endpoint, admitedly running 7.4 not 8.x or head, pings
> > to the LOCAL endpoint of the gif0 tunne
On 26 September 2011 15:21, Gary Palmer wrote:
> Smells like a routing table problem or similar configuration problem.
> On my tunnel endpoint, admitedly running 7.4 not 8.x or head, pings
> to the LOCAL endpoint of the gif0 tunnel go over lo0, not the external
> interface (gif0). I believe that
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 02:49:15PM +0100, Matt Smith wrote:
> On 26 September 2011 14:29, Gary Palmer wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:27:53AM +0100, Matt Smith wrote:
> > Do you have access to any other IPv6 hosts on a separate link? ?If so,
> > I would suggest trying a ping or traceroute ba
On 26 September 2011 14:29, Gary Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:27:53AM +0100, Matt Smith wrote:
> Do you have access to any other IPv6 hosts on a separate link? If so,
> I would suggest trying a ping or traceroute back to your IP or
> IPs across the tunnel and see if the packets are
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:27:53AM +0100, Matt Smith wrote:
> I have a very strange problem with a gif interface that has been
> confusing me all weekend. For the last six months I have had a gif
> tunnel setup to an ipv6 tunnel broker which has worked without any
> issues. On Friday I had a power
On 26 September 2011 12:46, Bjoern A. Zeeb
wrote:
> Given you are using NAT make sure that works as expected for the gif
> from the remote end. It might be worth, if you can, do tcpdump on
> the external interface of your router.
>
> Also make sure you can reach the IPv4 tunnel destination.
I a
On Sep 26, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Matt Smith wrote:
> root@tao[~]# ifconfig gif0
> gif0: flags=8051 metric 0 mtu 1280
>tunnel inet 192.168.1.2 --> 77.75.104.126
Given you are using NAT make sure that works as expected for the gif
from the remote end. It might be worth, if you can, do tcpdump
20 matches
Mail list logo
