https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=288426
Mark Johnston changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ma...@freebsd.org
Assign
The following handful-line patch (left the original assignments
commented out) causes rtadvd to conform to the man page *except* you
have to actually specify the interface to change pltime and vltime;
doing so in "default" is not picked up.
I initiated a bug report; is there a
the gateway crashes or is rebooted and on restart fails to get a
new IPv6 delegation at all) -- since you can't set the shorter valid
time and have it work the system(s) that previously got those SLACC
addresses on your inside network will attempt to connect outbound on
them and fail since
since I have no clue what it is in advance (it comes off the delegation
from the ISP of course)
This looks like a bug (starting rtadvd with verbose debugging on in the
foreground doesn't log any complaints -- it looks like it just ignores
the parameters.)
On 7/23/2025 23:26, John Hay wrot
Hi Karl,
What if you use a = instead of the #? For example :vltime=86400:
I set rdnss and dnssl using = and that works.
John
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 01:38, Karl Denninger wrote:
> On 7/23/2025 16:47, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2025, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> (sorry I del
On 7/23/2025 16:47, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025, Karl Denninger wrote:
Hi,
(sorry I deleted the message as the tex/only part was barely parsable).
Can you, for testing, try adding an
addr="xxx:xxx:xxx:::":\
to one of your entries and see if the behaviour changes?
/bz
r
On Wed, 23 Jul 2025, Karl Denninger wrote:
Hi,
(sorry I deleted the message as the tex/only part was barely parsable).
Can you, for testing, try adding an
addr="xxx:xxx:xxx:::":\
to one of your entries and see if the behaviour changes?
/bz
--
Bjoern A. Zeeb
Roy Marples writes:
Hi Roy
> As Eugene said, you can use dhcpcd in ports with the slaac directive like so
>
> interface bge0
>slaac token ::dead:beef
>
> Then you get ::dead:beef appended to each autoconf address from the RA.
> You could use ::1 for your token which should meet your needs as
Hello,
when there are often changes of the IPv6 prefix and rtadvd is running, the
command
rtadvctl -vv show
quits with a "Segmentation fault error" after the first vlan interface shown,
not showing any
subsequent vlan NIC. Prefix delegation is corrupted and so the IPv6 network
tifier". The concept is self explanatory, a interface/router obtains a
> > propagated
> > prefix and the concept allows the explicit definition of the host portion.
> >
> > I haven't managed to accomplish such a behaviour using FreeBSD's rtadvd
d: [privileged proxy] (dhcpcd) 145 - SC 0:00.02 dhcpcd: [network
proxy] (dhcpcd) 146 - SC 0:00.01 dhcpcd: [control proxy] (dhcpcd) 600 -
IC 0:00.00 dhcpcd: [BPF ARP] igb0 71.15.252.132 (dhcpcd)
I presume rtadvd still has to run to distribute routes, yes?
I'm not COMPLETELY sure everything works as
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 22:59:15 + Karl Denninger
wrote ---
> On 2/21/2025 14:18, Roy Marples wrote:
> Aha! On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:34:25 + Roy Marples
> wrote --- > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 17:49:28 +
> Karl Denninger wrote --- > >
On 2/21/2025 14:18, Roy Marples wrote:
Aha!
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:34:25 + Roy Marples wrote
---
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 17:49:28 + Karl
Denninger wrote ---
> > The issue that I had with it not configuring properly on a
cold boot, as far as I know, has no
Aha!
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 18:34:25 + Roy Marples wrote
---
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 17:49:28 + Karl Denninger
> wrote ---
> > The issue that I had with it not configuring properly on a
> cold boot, as far as I know, has not been addressed -- unless there a
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 17:49:28 + Karl Denninger
wrote ---
> The issue that I had with it not configuring properly on a cold
> boot, as far as I know, has not been addressed -- unless there are updates
> since you and I conversed on that point.
I was never able to repli
On 2/21/2025 12:47, Roy Marples wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:52:33 + A FreeBSD
User wrote ---
> Linux has this feature since a while and I can not believe that FreeBSD
lacks such a feature.
Work on merging dhcpcd into FreeBSD has sadly stalled for reasons unknown.
https://revie
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 06:52:33 + A FreeBSD User
wrote ---
> Linux has this feature since a while and I can not believe that FreeBSD
> lacks such a feature.
Work on merging dhcpcd into FreeBSD has sadly stalled for reasons unknown.
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D22012
Maybe some Free
he concept is self explanatory, a interface/router obtains a
> > propagated prefix
> > and the concept allows the explicit definition of the host portion.
> >
> > I haven't managed to accomplish such a behaviour using FreeBSD's rtadvd(8)
> > d
st portion.
I haven't managed to accomplish such a behaviour using FreeBSD's rtadvd(8)
daemon. I guess
this task is subject of and performed through the rtadvd.conf(5) configuration
file, but I
haven't managed yet to accomplish such a task (to speak simple: I'd like to
have
complish such a behaviour using FreeBSD's rtadvd(8)
daemon. I guess
this task is subject of and performed through the rtadvd.conf(5) configuration
file, but I
haven't managed yet to accomplish such a task (to speak simple: I'd like to
have a router of a
subnet always at IPv6 Net
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=261129
Patrick M. Hausen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@hausen.com
--- Comment #2
| RA by rtadvd
v
(LAN)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=261129
FiLiS changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||freebsdb...@filis.org
--- Comment #18 from
ption
switched on.
In the meantime I noticed there is a difference in the output - the concerend
interface shows TRANSITIVE instead CONFIGURED (I didn't see that at first).
Now I tried to reproduce, and indeed, just doing "ifconfig down; sleep 1;
ifconfig up" has this same effect.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=276843
--- Comment #2 from Peter Much ---
Created attachment 248294
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=248294&action=edit
debug.log while ifconfig down/up nlan_1u
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assigne
||ma...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #1 from Mark Johnston ---
Do you see any messages from rtadvd in /var/log/messages when the interface
goes down? I see some code in it which logs messages when IFF_UP is toggled,
so that might a starting point for some debugging.
--
You are
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=276843
Mark Linimon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|b...@freebsd.org|n...@freebsd.org
--
You are receiv
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=261129
Alexander V. Chernikov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|b...@freebsd.org|melif...@freebsd.org
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=261129
--- Comment #17 from Marek Zarychta ---
Update
A couple of days ago I rewrote the set of slapdash PF rules suspecting them as
the cause, especially initially abused "rtable" statements. The "rtable" had
been replaced with "reply-to" or del
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=261129
--- Comment #16 from Marek Zarychta ---
After taking some measures and test, so far I came to following conclusions:
1. The default route gets _silently_ corrupted irregardless of deployed
route.algo, with no traces observable neither with
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=261129
--- Comment #15 from Marek Zarychta ---
(In reply to Tatsuki Makino from comment #14)
I have hijacked this PR, but you are probably referring to Goran's original
report.
I have not progress with solving my issue. So far I found that with s
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=261129
Tatsuki Makino changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tatsuki_mak...@hotmail.com
--- Co
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=261129
--- Comment #13 from Marek Zarychta ---
(In reply to Marek Zarychta from comment #12)
>Default gateways:
>1. fib 0:
># netstat -rn6 | grep default
>default 2001:470:x:y::1UGSawg0
>2. fib 1:
># netstat -rn6 -F 1 | grep defaul
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=261129
Marek Zarychta changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||n...@freebsd.org,
as PPPoE/L2TP termination (LNS). The IPv6CP is
completely sufficient for IPv6 over PPP.
> Will rtadvd automatically listen on the mpd5 ng* interface if the said
> interface has a public IPv6 address and a user connects (w/ default
> config)? Or will I need to trigger rtadvd manually?
You can
Hi freebsd-net@,
I'm thinking about setting up a dual-stack L2TP server for VPN purposes,
and found that mpd5 lacks good dual-stack support outside of IPv6CP, so
we have to do a makeshift approach.
Will rtadvd automatically listen on the mpd5 ng* interface if the said
interface has a p
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247700
John W. O'Brien changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugs.freebsd.org/bu
question of
whether every usable A->B address pair is also a usable B->A pair, assuming
unicast semantics. In the rtadvd(8)/RA case, we enjoy the benefit of multicast
semantics, where B->A is invalid regardless of the scopes. It was for that
reason, in addition to the above, that I el
ot limited to Router
Advertisement messages. For this reason, FreeBSD configures an EUI-64 LLA by
default.
There are some scenarios where only GUAs are configured on an interface,
however. To prevent rtadvd(8) from sending invalid packets you reported, I
think rtadvd(8) should check if the interfa
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247700
Hiroki Sato changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|standa...@freebsd.org |h...@freebsd.org
Status|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247700
--- Comment #1 from John W. O'Brien ---
Created attachment 216122
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=216122&action=edit
Reject scope-incompatible IPv6 source address
I have very limited confidence in this patch becau
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247700
John W. O'Brien changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||n...@freebsd.org
--
You are rec
John-Mark Gurney wrote
in <20200402211304.gz4...@funkthat.com>:
jm> Fernando Gont wrote this message on Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 22:18 -0300:
jm> > Folks,
jm> >
jm> > I'm playing with rtadvd, and I'm curious about a debug message I'm
jm> > getti
Fernando Gont wrote this message on Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 22:18 -0300:
> Folks,
>
> I'm playing with rtadvd, and I'm curious about a debug message I'm
> getting when specifying Route Information options.
>
> My config file is this:
> - cut here
>
Folks,
I'm playing with rtadvd, and I'm curious about a debug message I'm
getting when specifying Route Information options.
My config file is this:
- cut here
em0:\
:addr="fc00:1::":prefixlen=64\
:rtprefix="fc00:1::":rtplen=64:rt
up ipv6, and going through the guide at:
> bz> > https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/network-ipv6.html#idp71931000
> bz> >
> bz> > And noticed the addrs#1 property in the example. I checked the
> bz> > rtadvd.conf man page, and I do not see an entry for addrs. Should
6.html#idp71931000
bz> >
bz> > And noticed the addrs#1 property in the example. I checked the
bz> > rtadvd.conf man page, and I do not see an entry for addrs. Should
bz> > this be removed? I also did a quick check of the rtadvd source code,
bz> > and I don't see a m
. Should
this be removed? I also did a quick check of the rtadvd source code,
and I don't see a makeentry for addrs either.
If no one objects, I'll remove it.
Or replace it with a working example? Would something like this work to
even show multiple prefixes (beyond the handbo
the rtadvd source code,
and I don't see a makeentry for addrs either.
If no one objects, I'll remove it.
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195191
Kubilay Kocak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-qa|feature
Flags|mfc-sta
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195191
Mark Johnston changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|Open|Closed
Resolution|---
NET_RT_IFLIST sysctl failure.
PR: 195191
Changes:
_U stable/11/
stable/11/usr.sbin/rtadvd/if.c
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman
NET_RT_IFLIST sysctl failure.
PR: 195191
Changes:
_U stable/12/
stable/12/usr.sbin/rtadvd/if.c
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195191
Mark Johnston changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ma...@freebsd.org
Assign
:
head/usr.sbin/rtadvd/if.c
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195191
--- Comment #6 from Philipp Erbelding ---
I've applied the original patch against 12.0-RELEASE eight days ago and did not
have another rtadvd outage since then. Before this, the process seemedt to
never make it more than 3 days in my
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195191
guy...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #149611|0 |1
is obsolete|
Severity|Affects Only Me |Affects Some People
CC||n...@freebsd.org
Flags||mfc-stable12?
Summary|[patch] rtadvd(8): rtadvd |rtadvd(8): Retry on
|should retry on
refix
Information Flags).
As far as I can tell, our rtadvd(8) doesn't support the extended 'R' flag.
My aim:
Stateful _only_ (dhcp6) configuration in the LAN for widest client
deversity possible, without the need to change anything on any client.
dhcp6 setup was no probelm with isc&
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205834
Hiroki Sato changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|New |In Progress
Assignee|freeb
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205834
Andrey V. Elsukov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|freebsd-b...@freebsd.org|freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
--
Yo
Hi,
Since upgrading to FreeBSD 8.3, I noticed that after rtadvd starts, it
does not respond to router solicitations during a quite long time.
I have made a patch which speeds up rtadvd's start by making fewer calls
to if_indextoname. Moreover, it will react properly in case
if_indext
Old Synopsis: Does not work through the issue of ipv6 addresses via rtadvd
New Synopsis: [ip6] Does not work through the issue of ipv6 addresses via rtadvd
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-When: Sun Feb 19 22:18:12 UTC 2
"Vladislav V. Prodan" wrote
in <4dd96ea4.4080...@ukr.net>:
un> Why host for so long waiting for ipv6 addresses?
un> To get faster, it is necessary or server restarted rtadvd or on host
un> repeatedly triggering "ndp -i em1"
un>
un> Perhaps we need
Why host for so long waiting for ipv6 addresses?
To get faster, it is necessary or server restarted rtadvd or on host
repeatedly triggering "ndp -i em1"
Perhaps we need to explicitly specify some other options rtadvd?
server:
FreeBSD mary-teresa 8.2-STABLE FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE #0:
On 1 March 2011 02:28, User Red35 wrote:
>
> I am getting started with IPv6 and I am trying to get rtadvd working on
> the carp interface but it is not working so far.
>
>
> ### I have carp failover between two firewalls. The default gateway for
> ### hosts intern
I am getting started with IPv6 and I am trying to get rtadvd working on
the carp interface but it is not working so far.
### I have carp failover between two firewalls. The default gateway for
###hosts internal to the firewall is 172.31.98.103 for IPv4
###and 2001:470:dead:98::103 for
Hi,
I'm trying to enable IPv6 troughout the whole network here but I'm stuck
on configuring rtadvd on my redundant firewall. The firewall consists
of two Soekris net5501 (with 4 additional network interfaces each).
Sis0 is connected to a LAN where I'd like to use IPv6, carp
I have a machine I want to do IPv6 routing. The interface out which its
sending router advertisements has multiple static IPv6 addresses
assigned from the same prefix. The problem is rtadvd is selecting the
"wrong" address for the router. The man page for rtadvd.conf doesn't
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:19:11 +0200, Bernd Walter wrote:
> It seems our rtadvd is missing support for stateles DNS configuration.
> There is also a NetBSD PR about this (41510), so there is likely
> no code to get from them.
> How difficult would it be to add RFC5006 support to at
It seems our rtadvd is missing support for stateles DNS configuration.
There is also a NetBSD PR about this (41510), so there is likely
no code to get from them.
How difficult would it be to add RFC5006 support to at least rtadvd?
--
B.Walter http://www.bwct.de
Modbus/TCP Ethernet I/O
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:27:43PM +0100, Stefan Bethke wrote:
> Am 11.12.2009 um 07:51 schrieb Chris Cowart:
>
> > Bruce Cran wrote:
> >> I have a router configured using if_bridge with a 4-port NIC that's
> >> serving addresses over DHCP. I'd like to
Am 11.12.2009 um 07:51 schrieb Chris Cowart:
> Bruce Cran wrote:
>> I have a router configured using if_bridge with a 4-port NIC that's
>> serving addresses over DHCP. I'd like to add in either rtadvd or
>> DHCPv6, but neither work because the bridge interface doe
Synopsis: [panic] rtadvd(8) triggers kernel panic when started for a hardware
WLAN interface
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-net->syrinx
Responsible-Changed-By: remko
Responsible-Changed-When: Sun Jan 24 10:52:33 UTC 2010
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Shteryana has a patch, assign to her.
h
Hello Shteryana,
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 05:19:07PM +0200, Shteryana Shopova wrote:
> Can you please verify the patch
> (http://people.freebsd.org/~syrinx/ieee80211_ioctl-20100121-01.diff)
> for kern/142391 fixes this one too? Thanks.
Yes, kern/142391 and kern/142392 are both fixed with this patc
Hi,
Can you please verify the patch
(http://people.freebsd.org/~syrinx/ieee80211_ioctl-20100121-01.diff)
for kern/142391 fixes this one too? Thanks.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 2:08 AM, wrote:
> Old Synopsis: rtadvd triggers kernel panic when started for a hardware WLAN
> interface
> New
Old Synopsis: rtadvd triggers kernel panic when started for a hardware WLAN
interface
New Synopsis: [panic] rtadvd(8) triggers kernel panic when started for a
hardware WLAN interface
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-net
Responsible-Changed-By: linimon
Responsible-Changed-W
On 12/10/2009 10:51 PM, Chris Cowart wrote:
> Bruce Cran wrote:
>> I have a router configured using if_bridge with a 4-port NIC that's
>> serving addresses over DHCP. I'd like to add in either rtadvd or
>> DHCPv6, but neither work because the bridge interface doe
Bruce Cran wrote:
> I have a router configured using if_bridge with a 4-port NIC that's
> serving addresses over DHCP. I'd like to add in either rtadvd or
> DHCPv6, but neither work because the bridge interface doesn't have an
> IPv6 link-local address. Is there a wa
I have a router configured using if_bridge with a 4-port NIC that's
serving addresses over DHCP. I'd like to add in either rtadvd or
DHCPv6, but neither work because the bridge interface doesn't have an
IPv6 link-local address. Is there a way around this, or is it not
possibl
When rtadvd is compiled on 7.0, the following warning is emitted:
/usr/src/usr.sbin/rtadvd/rrenum.c:179: warning: overflow in implicit
constant conversion
I have not determined if the code works correct or not, but I wonder
if it does. the line in question is this:
struct irr_raflagmask
ation time, in Expire column, also extended one year. Is this OK?
2.in router advertisement daemon(rtadvd)
I also adjust system current time to test rtadvd. Before I adjust system
current time, rtadvd can send unsolicited RA periodically. rtadvd can send
unsolicited RA about from 200 seco
se a prefix as deprecated (i.e. with zero pltime)
if it sees the prefix is deprecated on the interface.
I understand that it is your decision whether the above is an obscure
corner case worth little/no support from rtadvd because you are the
author ^_^. However RFC 4192 was the (only) v6ops documen
>>>>> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:56:49 -0800,
>>>>> "Eugene M. Kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Note that the two automatically configured addresses on em0 are still
> preferred, while the prefix 2001:470:1f01:3222::/64 is deprecated on t
Greetings,
Unless disabled with -s flag, rtadvd(8) automatically picks up on-link
prefixes from the routing table and includes them in RA messages. In
doing so, rtadvd does not seem to distinguish preferred prefixes
(preferred lifetime > 0) from distinguished ones (pltime = 0), but
sim
JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:48:13 -0500,
"Michael C. Cambria" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
On 4.10-Stable & 5.3-Stable, I'm able to forward IPv6 traffic just fine
when I manually start rtadvd. However, each reboot, only one interface
supplied to r
>>>>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:48:13 -0500,
>>>>> "Michael C. Cambria" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 4.10-Stable & 5.3-Stable, I'm able to forward IPv6 traffic just fine
> when I manually start rtadvd. However, each reboot, only
Hi,
Is one meant to start rtadvd on more than one interface via rc.conf?
On 4.10-Stable & 5.3-Stable, I'm able to forward IPv6 traffic just fine
when I manually start rtadvd. However, each reboot, only one interface
supplied to rtadvd_interfaces actually gets enabled. ps ax shows
> On Thu, 31 May 2001 00:46:33 -0400,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> My understanding of this function is like this.
> This function will receive input only when
> c) when a new address is formed from the prefix through the prefix received through
>router advertisement.
On FreeBSD 4.x,
Hi,
My understanding of this function is like this.
This function will receive input only when
a)the routes are added through the route6 command.
b) When a prefix is added through the prefix command.
c) when a new address is formed from the prefix through the prefix received through
router adver
Hi,
In the manual pages of the rtadvd command it is mentioned that
"If there is no configuration file entry for an interface, or if the
configuration file does not exist altogether, rtadvd sets all the parameters
to their default values. In particular, rtadvd reads all the interface r
>>>>> On Fri, 18 May 2001 03:01:13 -0400,
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I need the following information on the rtadvd daemon implementation.
> If no configuration file is created & we have given -s option with rtadvd from
>where will it const
Hi,
I need the following information on the rtadvd daemon implementation.
If no configuration file is created & we have given -s option with rtadvd from where
will it construct the rtadvd information ( struct rainfo).
regards
ravi pr
93 matches
Mail list logo
