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
; From: owner-freebsd-...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> n...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Matt Smith
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 2:28 AM
> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
> Subject: gif interface not passing IPv6 packets
>
> I have a very strange problem with a gif
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
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 cut. The power returned, the server
restarted, and the tunnel has be
21 matches
Mail list logo
