"Ben Woods" wrote
in :
wo> If accepted, I would recommend a phased implementation such as that
wo> suggested below - open to ideas.
wo>
wo> - 14.0 (and perhaps 13.2) - dhcpcd included but off by default
wo> - (WITH_DHCPCD=on, but rc.conf/network.subr continue to use
wo> - dhclient/rtsold). Rel
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote
in :
bz> >> In 1)+2), there is no POLA for users of other DHCPv6 clients such as
bz> >> dhcp6c or ISC's dhclient -6. A full-blown dhcpcd configuration,
bz> >> which replaces dhclient/rtsold, is still possible. The cons are that
bz> >> this is a partial integrati
Roy Marples wrote
in <4516f415-939e-6374-45ce-df19a2ac6...@marples.name>:
ro> On 07/08/2022 15:23, Hiroki Sato wrote:
ro> > 1) Import dhcpcd and make it invoked via Other Configuration flag
ro> > in RA for DHCPv6. This means that the rtsold daemon remains a
ro&g
Florent Peterschmitt wrote
in <518a6d5c.3030...@peterschmitt.fr>:
fl> Hi,
fl>
fl> I want to configure IPv6 in FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE like this :
fl>
fl> ipv6_enable=yes
fl> ipv6_activate_all_interfaces=yes
fl> ifconfig_em0_ipv6="inet6 2001:41D0:8:B81f:: prefixlen 64"
fl> -interface em0"
fl> ipv6_d
Florent Peterschmitt wrote
in <518bfbf6.4040...@peterschmitt.fr>:
fl> Le 09/05/2013 21:19, Hiroki Sato a écrit :
fl> > Florent Peterschmitt wrote
fl> > in <518a6d5c.3030...@peterschmitt.fr>:
fl> >
fl> > fl> Hi,
fl> > fl>
fl> > fl&g
Chip Marshall wrote
in <20130508155446.gb95...@2bithacker.net>:
ch> It appears the MONITOR flag doesn't work on gre interfaces.
ch>
ch> I have a GRE tunnel set up between a FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE box and a
ch> Juniper router.
ch>
ch> Config on the FreeBSD end:
ch>
ch> gre0: flags=4b051
metric 0 m
Ermal Luçi wrote
in :
er> Hello,
er>
er> at location [1] can be found a patch for making stf(4) understand 6rd.
er> It supports variable masks for the ipv4 network as well.
er>
er> The patch has been tested on pfSense.
er> It adds to new option to ifconfig for defining the 6rd border router a
Hi,
I would like your comments about the attached patch. This allows
IFT_BRIDGE interfaces to accept ND6_IFF_AUTO_LINKLOCAL and
autoconfiguration of a link-local address with EUI-64 interface id.
One thing I am concerned about is the case when the parent interface
and the member interfaces
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote
in :
ji> > So I guess the question is: what do we do? It looks like we're in
ji> > violation of both RFC 3493, Section 5.3 and POSIX 2008, Volume 2, Section
ji> > 2.10.20*.
ji>
ji> ...aside from what FreeBSD should do for ip6.v6only, I personally
ji> believe that real
Peter Wemm wrote
in :
pe> I'm looking for pointers to something that can listen to bgp default
pe> route announcements from two outbound gateways and set a RADIX_MPATH
pe> compatible default route based on whether one or both are alive.
pe>
pe> openbgpd from ports is extremely incompatible with
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote
in :
zb> I have a FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE vmware guest running. It is using the
zb> "bridged" type of networking with VMWare. It gets it's IPv4 address from
zb> DHCP (successfully) and then fails to initialize IPv6. The relevant
zb> rc.conf is:
zb>
zb> ipv6_activate_all_in
Georg Bege wrote
in <1374064573.525.2.camel@atwork>:
th> Hello FreeBSD users
th>
th> Im in need of proxying an NDP entry,
th> due my bad provider using IPv6 bridging.
th> My entire subnet is not routed correctly, however I managed to get it
th> working with ndp -s proxy - sadly this doesnt wo
Georg Bege wrote
in <1374226382.2820.1.camel@atwork>:
th> Hello Hiroki
th>
th> Well I've got the subnet 2001:41d0:2:83a5::/64 and would like to route a
th> portion of this - let's say 2001:41d0:2:83a5:100::/124 via an gif
th> interface.
th> The ISP is OVH, I heard it's known for broken setups l
[Added yougari@ and davidch@ to the To:/Cc: list]
I confirmed that my issue reported on -current@ is due to the bxe(4)
driver (BCM57711). If it is disabled, shutdown works fine without
NMI.
Also, I received several reports about the same box that NMI occurred
even on bge(4) (BCM5717) driver
Yonghyeon PYUN wrote
in <20130731074341.gc1...@michelle.cdnetworks.com>:
py> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 03:54:06PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
py> > [Added yougari@ and davidch@ to the To:/Cc: list]
py> >
py> > I confirmed that my issue reported on -current@ is due
Will Andrews wrote
in :
wi> Please review: http://people.freebsd.org/~will/fix-fib-issues.1.diff
wi>
wi> This patch includes fixes for several issues relating to FIBs:
wi>
wi> * Use of dhclient with non-zero FIBs. With this patch, it is possible
wi> to use DHCP on a specific interface with a n
Xin Li wrote
in <521670ff.6080...@delphij.net>:
de> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
de> Hash: SHA512
de>
de> Hi,
de>
de> I've noticed that we do not install default route last (after other
de> static routes). I think we should probably install it last, since the
de> administrator may legiti
Xin Li wrote
in <521ba31c.5000...@delphij.net>:
de> > That has always been specifically not supported. default route
de> > needs to be directly attached. in fact the routing tables only ever
de> > deliver the 'next hop'
de>
de> Well, depends on whether the 'next hop' is an IP or an interface.
Mark Kamichoff wrote
in <20131014203929.gg25...@prolixium.com>:
pr> Hi -
pr>
pr> A colleague of mine recently stumbled upon an IPv6-related quirk in
pr> FreeBSD that seems to have appeared in the 9.x series.
...
pr> This behavior has been reproduced on 9.2, as well. It has not been seen
pr>
Mark Kamichoff wrote
in <20131014205824.gi25...@prolixium.com>:
pr> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 05:45:15AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
pr> > Try ip6addrctl_policy="ipv6_prefer" in rc.conf.
pr>
pr> Excellent. Thank you. I glanced right over that in
pr> /etc/defaul
Larry Rosenman wrote
in <20140612202349.ga65...@thebighonker.lerctr.org>:
le> I just started using IPv6 behind my (new to me) Cisco 1841.
le>
le> I see lots of:
le> Jun 12 15:16:25 thebighonker kernel: in6_ifadd:
2001:470:1f0f:3ad:223:7dff:fe9e:6e8a is already configured
le>
le> in my /var/log
John Hay wrote
in <20140619103513.ga92...@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za>:
jh> Hi Guys,
jh>
jh> freebsd-rc did not react, so I'm just checking on -net too.
jh>
jh> I found after upgrading that vlan handling broke. I tried the following:
jh>
jh> vlans_bce1="6"
jh> ipv4_addrs_bce1_6="inet 10.239.100.2/2
Larry Rosenman wrote
in <20140619140801.ga65...@thebighonker.lerctr.org>:
le> > le> Ideas? (I may be an idiot, so any criticism welcomed).
le> > le>
le> > le> if you need the 1841's config, I can supply that as well. It's using
a Hurricane
le> > le> electric Tunnel.
le> >
le> > How frequent
"Daniel O'Connor" wrote
in <2cece1b6-98b6-4219-bdd7-220f83cae...@gsoft.com.au>:
do> Hi,
do> I have a FreeBSD 8 machine that is my router and I previously had IPv6
do> working. ie it gave out RTADV messages and clients (Windows 7, OSX &
do> Ubuntu) got public IPv6 addresses based on the advertis
Mattia Rossi wrote
in <4ee7cdbe.1090...@swin.edu.au>:
mr> Ok, this is something I always get a bit confused with. I understand
mr> that it's the right clean thing to set up a /64 on the interface which
mr> sends router advertisements, but I also would expect by nature, that
mr> whatever prefixl
Doug Barton wrote
in <4f027bc0.1080...@freebsd.org>:
do> We have a pair of physical FreeBSD systems configured as routers
do> designed to operate in an active/standby CARP configuration. Everything
do> used to work fine, but since an upgrade to 8.2-STABLE on December 29th
do> the two routers do
Doug Barton wrote
in <4f036a7f.9030...@freebsd.org>:
do> This patch works even if net.inet.tcp.signature_verify_input=1. If I
do> turn that sysctl off on both sides they can talk to each other even
do> without the patch. So that would definitely seem to indicate that the
do> tcp_signature stuff
John Baldwin wrote
in <201201031608.59688@freebsd.org>:
jh> > With this patch in_lifaddr_ioctl() now looks more syntactically similar
jh> > to in6_lifaddr_ioctl(). They could look even more similar by eliminating
jh> > a lot of whitespace changes present here or there.
jh>
jh> Hmmm. Actual
Pawel Tyll wrote
in <1609249417.20120104033...@nitronet.pl>:
pt> Hi lists,
pt>
pt> I'm observing something strange.
pt>
pt> ipv6_enable="YES"
pt> ipv6_gateway_enable="YES"
pt> ipv6_network_interfaces="vlan3901"
pt> ipv6_ifconfig_vlan3901="2001:7f8:42::a503:9310:1/64"
pt>
pt> vlan3901: flags=894
Pawel Tyll wrote
in <1161157726.20120104052...@nitronet.pl>:
pt> Hi Hiroki,
pt>
pt> > Does the attached patch (for 8.x kernel) fix your problem?
pt> Unfortunately, it doesn't. :(
Okay, so could you explain in more detail what symptoms made you
think NDP didn't work properly? The results of
Sami Halabi wrote
in :
so> Hi,
so> I'm using a FreeBSD8.2-R-p5 in conjunction with MPD5.5 port for creating
so> pptp/l2tp tunnels.
so>
so> I'm using MPPC (Compression & Encryption), my current onfiguration i use
so> only IPv4.
so>
so> I keep getting in the logs the following:
so> Jan 3 19:15:2
Doug Barton wrote
in <4f0ce268.1000...@freebsd.org>:
do> On 01/03/2012 13:03, Hiroki Sato wrote:
do> > Okay, thank you for your report. I will take some time to fix
do> > TCP_MD5SIG support in openbgpd and inform you when another patch is
do> > ready.
do>
do
Dennis Koegel wrote
in <20120110102405.ga82...@neveragain.de>:
dk> Cheers,
dk>
dk> problem: Having a *lot* of IPv6 interfaces (Vlan interfaces in this case)
dk> causes a huge and annoying delay time at system boot in 9.0R.
dk>
dk> ipv6_up() in network.subr does this:
dk>
dk> + # wait for DAD
Dennis Kögel wrote
in <9bbb9ab2-4f60-4dcb-8d25-fdec83f62...@neveragain.de>:
dk> Am 16.01.2012 um 20:45 schrieb Hiroki Sato:
dk> > Can you try the attached patch and let me know if it works fine on
dk> > your system?
dk>
dk> It does indeed.
Thank you for your repo
Sergey Matveychuk wrote
in <4f196d64.6020...@semmy.ru>:
se> 20.01.2012 10:52, Attila Nagy wrote:
se> > Hi,
se> >
se> > Having multiple routing tables is a very nice and (was a) long awaited
se> > capability in FreeBSD. Having it since years is even more cool,
se> > because
se> > we can assume i
Hello,
Can anyone review/test the attached patch to add "-fib number" option
to route(8)? This should simplify static route configuration across
multiple FIBs in rc.conf. Just adding an -fib option like the
following will do the trick without changing rc.d/routing:
static_routes="foo bar"
"Alexander V. Chernikov" wrote
in <4f2dc674.4070...@freebsd.org>:
me> On 04.02.2012 18:35, Hiroki Sato wrote:
me> > Hello,
me> >
me> > Can anyone review/test the attached patch to add "-fib number" option
me> > to route(8)? This
Archimedes Gaviola wrote
in <4f4aedbf.3000...@infoweapons.com>:
ag> Now, my observation is that there seems to be a problem with
ag> advertising two or perhaps more prefixes in the RA message. This has
ag> been tested in 7.x and the issues were the same. FreeBSD 4.11 behave
ag> the same as well
Mr Dandy wrote
in <201202252213.50760.sub...@gmail.com>:
su> Hi
su>
su> I play with IPv6 on the Hezner hosting. According to
su> http://wiki.hetzner.de/index.php/Zusaetzliche_IP-Adressen/en information my
su> rc.conf have (FreeBSD 9.0-RELEASE/amd64):
su> ---
su> ipv6_activate_all_interfaces="YE
Damien Fleuriot wrote
in <4f55e8b0.8010...@my.gd>:
ml> Hello guys,
ml>
ml>
ml> Are there any news on the topic ?
ml>
ml> Trying to push IP6 at work for our firewalls and struggling with CARP
ml> interfaces with inet6 addresses at boot like OP.
ml>
ml> I could probably just set the address with
Lev Serebryakov wrote
in <1606941405.20120429170...@serebryakov.spb.ru>:
le> Hello, Freebsd-net.
le>
le> "Famous" dedicated server provider Hetzner provides native IPv6 for
le> servers, but with rather strange routing configuration: you need to
le> configure static interface route and make thi
"Alexander V. Chernikov" wrote
in <4ffa9723.5000...@freebsd.org>:
me> On 09.07.2012 12:08, Hiroki Sato wrote:
me> > "Alexander V. Chernikov" wrote
me> >in<4ffa894d.9050...@freebsd.org>:
me> >
me> > I meant there was no st
Hi,
Fernando Gont wrote
in <5002e024.4090...@gont.com.ar>:
fe> Folks,
fe>
fe> FYI, we've released "IPv6 toolkit v1.2": a set of IPv6 security
fe> assessment tools that were produced as part of a project I carried out
fe> on behalf of the UK CPNI.
fe>
fe> The tarball for version 1.2 of the tool
Garrett Cooper wrote
in :
ya> Hi -net!
ya> I've been doing some IPv6 testing lately, and one of the issues
ya> that I've run into in the past (since at least 7.0-CURRENT) is that if
ya> I do `service netif restart `, e.g. `service netif restart`
ya> multiple times, and have addresses static
"Alexander V. Chernikov" wrote
in <5076c0e3.9050...@freebsd.org>:
me> Hello list!
me>
me> Currently there are some unnecessary code residing in
me> netinet6/in6_rmx.c causing performance degradation for IPv6
me> forwarding.
me>
me> Initially it was merged from netinet/in_rmx.c but it seems it i
Adrian Chadd wrote
in :
ad> On 17 November 2012 18:35, FreeBSD Tinderbox wrote:
ad>
ad> > cc -c -O -pipe -std=c99 -g -Wall -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline -Wcast-qual
-Wundef -Wno-pointer-sign -fformat-extensions -Wmiss
Adrian Chadd wrote
in :
ad> On 17 November 2012 21:45, Hiroki Sato wrote:
ad>
ad> > ad> Fixed. Damn those pesky non-IPV6 belivers.
ad> >
ad> > Sorry, I was careless about this part.
ad>
ad> It's fine. :-) God, I so can't grill anyone for breaking th
Garrett Cooper wrote
in :
ya> Hi,
ya> I've been TAHI testing FreeBSD 7.x sources for the past couple
ya> months and over the course of my testing via the TAHI IPv6 conformance
ya> test, I changed the knob value from net.inet6.icmp6.nd6_useloopback=1
ya> -> net.inet6.icmp6.nd6_useloopback=0
Rui Paulo wrote
in <63c19ad8-ea8d-49a8-9e98-4235c4745...@freebsd.org>:
rp> On 25 Nov 2012, at 23:35, Adrian Chadd wrote:
rp>
rp> > DO we know which commit triggered this?
rp>
rp>
rp> I haven't bisected.
I do not think my commit triggered it because it occurred in
rt_msg2(). Andrey, can you
Mateusz Guzik wrote
in <20121201133609.ga5...@dft-labs.eu>:
mj> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:16:25PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
mj> > Mateusz: are you sure it's that commit?
mj> >
mj>
mj> Yes, I double-checked right now.
mj>
mj> > I still get this in -HEAD:
mj> >
mj>
mj> Maybe I expressed myself
Hiroki Sato wrote
in <20121201.225004.2232262673795057435@allbsd.org>:
hr> Mateusz Guzik wrote
hr> in <20121201133609.ga5...@dft-labs.eu>:
hr>
hr> mj> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 11:16:25PM -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
hr> mj> > Mateusz: are you sure it
Mateusz Guzik wrote
in <20121201223049.ga12...@dft-labs.eu>:
mj> On Sun, Dec 02, 2012 at 06:54:36AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
mj> > Hiroki Sato wrote
mj> > in <20121201.225004.2232262673795057435@allbsd.org>:
mj> >
mj> > hr> Mateusz Guzik wrote
John Baldwin wrote
in <201012200807.57670@freebsd.org>:
jh> On Monday, December 20, 2010 1:10:57 am John Hay wrote:
jh> > Hi,
jh> >
jh> > I see that on FreeBSD-8 if you use IPv6 inside vlans, the local part of
jh> > the address (bottom 64 bits) is based on the MAC address of the first
jh> >
Charles Sprickman wrote
in :
sp> First, the easy one. For IPv6 aliases, what is the proper subnet?
Normally it is a /64. See also Section 2.5.4 in RFC 4291.
sp> And the second one, which is also probably easy. We're going to move
sp> at some point from a bunch of subnets on the same wire
Charles Sprickman wrote
in :
sp> On Tue, 17 May 2011, Hiroki Sato wrote:
sp>
sp> > Charles Sprickman wrote
sp> > in
sp> > :
sp> >
sp> > sp> First, the easy one. For IPv6 aliases, what is the proper subnet?
sp> >
sp> > Normally it is a /
Thomas wrote
in <4ddb6d8a.1090...@bsdunix.ch>:
fr> Hello
fr>
fr> Out of pure curiosity. Why is accept_rtadv enabled by default on a
fr> interface with ipv6? I did not define accept_rtadv in rc.conf nor is it
fr> enabled via sysctl. net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv is set to 0 (default)
An interface
"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 to explicitly specify some other options rtadvd
MrMulleMeck wrote
in :
mr> When rtsol(d) starts, it check the interface status (flags). If flags
mr> are not (IFF_UP|IFF_RUNNING) rtsol concludes the interface is "not
mr> active". However, immediately after this, rtsol will activate/set the
mr> IFF_UP flag (if not set) causing DAD to start. Le
Hi,
A patch to add RFC 6106 support to rtadvd(8) and rtsold(8) on
RELENG_8 can be found at the following URL:
http://people.freebsd.org/~hrs/rfc6106_stable8_20110611.diff
Can anyone test it? 8.X uses net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv and
net.inet6.ip6.forwarding to determine if accepting RAs or
Hiroki Sato wrote
in <20110612.150014.583045369315129695@allbsd.org>:
hr> Hi,
hr>
hr> A patch to add RFC 6106 support to rtadvd(8) and rtsold(8) on
hr> RELENG_8 can be found at the following URL:
hr>
hr> http://people.freebsd.org/~hrs/rfc6106_stable8_20110611
Hi,
I would like your comments about the following issue and proposal.
The background is as follows. The resolvconf(8) utility has been
imported some time before to handle update of /etc/resolv.conf by
using multiple RDNSS (recursive DNS server) information sources. The
possible sources ar
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote
in <6fe95ac6-ccb2-45b0-8347-ab31283ee...@lists.zabbadoz.net>:
bz> I am not entirely sure I like "slaac" or "dhcp4". I wonder if progname
bz> would be sufficient in call cases either (I could well see a "dhclient"
bz> or another "fooapp" that can handle both v4 and v6) bu
Charles Sprickman wrote
in <4df9970d.5000...@bway.net>:
sp> -Edit rc.conf to include your IPv6 IP(s) and default route, specify
sp> which interfaces will run IPv6, and enable IPv6:
sp>
sp> ipv6_enable="YES"
sp> ipv6_network_interfaces="lo0 bce1"
sp> ipv6_defaultrouter="2001:xxx:::1"
sp> ipv
Charles Sprickman wrote
in <4df9accc.5070...@bway.net>:
sp> > LLA is a MUST for every IPv6-speaking interface, not for automatic
sp> > router discovery only. This is because ICMPv6 heavily depends on it.
sp> > Without LLA some unexpected and/or inconsistent behaviors can happen,
sp> > espe
jhell wrote
in <20110617022950.ga58...@dataix.net>:
jh> Gosh, Wouldnt it be something if we could store our dynamic resolver
jh> information with the interface in the same sort of fashion that we store
jh> our routing tables ? and then modify our routines in the library to look
jh> them up via
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote
in :
bz> The only thing I am only still pondering - do we want it to be
bz> "slaac" "dchpv4" or the program name? I can see advantages with both.
bz> If we go with "slaac" etc. we might need to - at least for the three or so
bz> things from base, add a table to the man
Vlad Galu wrote
in :
du> Hello,
du>
du> A couple of years ago, Stef Walter proposed a patch[1] that enforced
du> the scope of routing messages. The general consesus was that the best
du> approach would be the OpenBSD way - transporting the FIB number in the
du> message and letting the user appl
"Rainer Bredehorn" wrote
in <20110929123201.282...@gmx.net>:
Br> Hi!
Br>
Br> The FreeBSD 8.2 sends sevaral MLDv2 listener reports during startup.
Br> The system sends one listener report with its solicited multicast
Br> address which comes from the automatically generated link local
Br> address
"Rainer Bredehorn" wrote
in <20110930074856.282...@gmx.net>:
Br>
Br> > Could you show us more specifics about your configuration and packet
Br> > dump in question?
Br>
Br> Yes! It's the FreeBSD 8.2 release. The only thing which is activated in the
rc.conf is ipv6.
Br> I've included the ifc
"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> > t
Hi,
I found there are serious regressions in IPv6 routing on 8.x (and
7.1R and later) after ARP/NDP changes in the last December. What I
noticed are the following:
1) Scope violation in a simple global unicast address:
# ifconfig em0 inet6 2001:db8:1::1 prefixlen 64
# ping6 2001:db8:1::1
"Li, Qing" wrote
in
:
qi> Hi,
qi>
qi> The problems you raised:
qi>
qi> >
qi> > 1) Scope violation in a simple global unicast address:
qi> >
qi> > 2) Issue of subnet-router anycast address with a global address on
qi> > another I/F:
qi> >
qi>
qi> The above two issues should be fixed by r1
"Li, Qing" wrote
in
:
qi> Hi Hiroki,
qi>
qi> >
qi> > 2) Issue of subnet-router anycast address with a global address
qi> >
qi> > Thanks for the fixes! With the two patches 1) and 3) are gone, but
qi> > 2) still remains. Is there something I can help to narrow down it?
qi> >
qi>
qi> Hmm...
Hiroki Sato wrote
in <20090902.155958.08019398@allbsd.org>:
hr> Anyway, I will try the a-box-with-three-NICs case when I return home
hr> today. I didn't try it.
Okay, I tried the case of all of NICs on a host and confirmed it
works fine.
hr>
hr> qi> Would
wrote
in :
Ha> To answer my own question :-) These strange link local addresses are
Ha> explained in the developers handbook section 8.1.1.3 and are called
Ha> embedded
Ha> link local addresses. These are not standard IPv6 addresses, but a way
Ha> to encode the interface index (aka zone index)
Hideki Yamamoto wrote
in <90dbee150912261333l602c4161nccaf1995dc836...@mail.gmail.com>:
hy> Hi,
hy>
hy> I often use FreeBSD for developing the gateway. For example, I use gif for
the
hy> tunnel protocol when using IPv6 over IPv4 and use an application for
changing
hy> packet address for speci
gu...@bsdmail.org wrote
in <8cc796e5fbf77ea-2b00-1...@web-mmc-m03.sysops.aol.com>:
gu> I am running two nodes with freebsd 7.2 release on both.
gu> node 1 has three gifs with tunnels configured on all. The first gif has a
tunnel to node 2.
gu> Node two has one gif with a tunnel to node 1 config
Doug Barton wrote
in <4b945aa7.6070...@freebsd.org>:
do> As we've previously discussed, I would like to un-obsolete ipv6_enable,
do> and return it to the status of being the knob that actually controls
do> whether or not we configure IPv6. My understanding is that the consensus
do> is in agreem
David Horn wrote
in <25ff90d61003082037v3519995bx7e119e9d14143...@mail.gmail.com>:
dh> The question is what is the desired end-state for the rc.conf
dh> configuration of ipv6 ?
dh>
dh> Do we want to have a per-interface setting required to enable ipv6 SLAAC ?
dh> Do we want to have a global set
Frédéric Perrin wrote
in <20100425183825.2ee41...@girafe.home>:
fr> Hello,
fr>
fr> I have a box running 8.0-RELEASE on i386. It has several jails, each
fr> one being given an IPv6 alias. I notice that some jails can be reached
fr> from the outside, others can't. Conversely, if I set as the sou
Alfred Perlstein wrote
in <20100516062211.gc6...@elvis.mu.org>:
al> The following patch seems appropriate to apply
al> to fix the kernel ip6_sprintf() function.
al>
al> What it is doing is ensuring that when we
al> abbreviate addresses that the longest string
al> of zeros is shortend, not the f
Darren Pilgrim wrote
in <4c3565e8.5040...@bitfreak.org>:
fr> I can't find any hint of support for it. Did I miss something? If
fr> not, is there any work adding support for 6RD (RFC5569)?
A patch for 8.x is available:
http://bougaidenpa.org/masakazu/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/freebsd8-6
"Vladislav V. Prodan" wrote
in <4c5e33bb.50...@ukr.net>:
un> # host -6 2001:5c0:1000:b::599b 8.8.8.8
un> socket.c:1859: internal_send: :::8.8.8.8#53: Invalid argument
un> socket.c:1859: internal_send: :::8.8.8.8#53: Invalid argument
un> ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reach
Gary Palmer wrote
in <20100808050500.gb86...@in-addr.com>:
gp> On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 01:56:05PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
gp> > "Vladislav V. Prodan" wrote
gp> > in <4c5e33bb.50...@ukr.net>:
gp> >
gp> > un> # host -6 2001:5c0:1000:b:
Hello,
Can anyone try a patch for adding 6rd (RFC 5569) support to stf(4)?
The patch for HEAD can be found at:
http://people.allbsd.org/~hrs/FreeBSD/stf_6rd_20100921-1.diff
While it still includes a lot of extra code only for debugging
purpose, it should work anyway.
The operating princi
Lasse Brandt wrote
in <6be964c4-0838-4da6-9278-12c620ca1...@bitmand.com>:
la> 1) Is the hosting provider actually forcing me to do something "bad"
la> og plain wrong?
In that situation normally you get an IP address in the /59 network
to communicate with the gateway router from ISP. An IP a
Hiroki Sato wrote
in <20100923.053236.231630719@allbsd.org>:
hr> Hello,
hr>
hr> Can anyone try a patch for adding 6rd (RFC 5569) support to stf(4)?
hr> The patch for HEAD can be found at:
hr>
hr> http://people.allbsd.org/~hrs/FreeBSD/stf_6rd_20100921-1.diff
Ondoy wrote
in :
lo> I haven't tried your patch yet but I need some clarifications.
lo> RFC 5969 has the following elements for 6rd configuration:
lo> IPv4MaskLen, 6rdPrefix, 6rdPrefixLen, 6rdBRIPv4Address.
lo>
lo> >From your example, I think the following takes care of
lo> 6rdPrefix and 6rdPre
Ondoy wrote
in :
lo> Hello Hiroki,
lo>
lo> Thanks for your reply.
lo> I think I now see how you this is supposed to work.
lo> What I didn't (crucially) get first was that the BR IPv4 address is
configured
lo> at the CE when adding the IPv6 default route.
lo>
lo> It is simpler to get when 6rdPr
Doug Barton wrote
in <4ca51544.9080...@freebsd.org>:
do> In any case I didn't say that 6rd was not useful at all. What I tried
do> to make the case for is that its utility is limited, both in the
do> absolute sense and in the temporal sense; and that because of these
do> limitations the benefit
Dan Langille wrote
in <4ca55041.7040...@langille.org>:
da> # cat /etc/rtadvd.conf
da> fxp1:\
da> :addrs#1:addr="2001:470:1f07:b80::":prefixlen#64:tc=ether:
In this case, you do not need rtadvd.conf. The command line "rtadvd
fxp1" should work fine.
da> Where: fxp1 is on my internal LAN
"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
The following reply was made to PR kern/125003; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Hiroki Sato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: kern/125003: incorrect EtherIP header format.
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:30:14 +090
The following reply was made to PR kern/125003; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Hiroki Sato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: kern/125003: incorrect EtherIP header format.
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 01:35:12 +090
The following reply was made to PR kern/125003; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Hiroki Sato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: kern/125003: incorrect EtherIP header format.
Date: S
It looks odd because that link should be added automatically at 4 in
your procedure regardless of whether you use the stateless autoconf.
BTW, does your system have multiple NICs?
--
| Hiroki SATO
pgpDxd2C8bhPz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
1234:abcd:20c:27ff:fe3d:63dd/64 -interface em0 -cloning
-nostatic").
Your procedure looks correct to me and it should work on 7.0R, but on
both 7.1R and 7.2R it does not work at least. While I still have no
idea about a workaround to this symptom at this moment, I think it
will be f
c/sys/GENERIC i386
Oh, really? So maybe 7.0R has the same problem. I will try to
reproduce the symptom on my box.
--
| Hiroki SATO
pgpxmCik6m9d1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote
in <20090609074144.o22...@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net>:
bz> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Xin LI wrote:
bz>
bz> > Danny Braniss wrote:
bz> >>> Xin, good day.
bz> >>>
bz> >>> Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 04:49:36PM -0700, Xin LI wrote:
bz> The attached patch should fix this, any objectio
D6_IFF_PREFER_SOURCE,setnd6flags),
+ DEF_CMD("auto_linklocal",ND6_IFF_AUTO_LINKLOCAL,setnd6flags),
+ DEF_CMD("-auto_linklocal",-ND6_IFF_AUTO_LINKLOCAL,setnd6flags),
DEF_CMD_ARG("pltime", setip6pltime),
DEF_CMD_ARG("vltime", setip6vltime
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo