Re: [Solved, I think] IPv6 default route. Can't see the wood for the trees.

On 28/08/2012 02:23, Mark Andrews wrote: In message <503bcb0a.6000...@freebsd.org>, Doug Barton writes: On 8/27/2012 12:27 PM, Christian Laursen wrote: On 08/27/12 21:03, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: On 27/08/2012 19:06, Christian Laursen wrote: On 08/27/12 18:49, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: rc.conf:

Re: IPv6 default route. Can't see the wood for the trees.

> On 8/27/2012 12:27 PM, Christian Laursen wrote: >> On 08/27/12 21:03, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: >>> On 27/08/2012 19:06, Christian Laursen wrote: On 08/27/12 18:49, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: > rc.conf: > > (I'm not convinced that obfuscating the addresses is worth the > confusion

Re: IPv6 default route. Can't see the wood for the trees.

In message <503bcb0a.6000...@freebsd.org>, Doug Barton writes: > On 8/27/2012 12:27 PM, Christian Laursen wrote: > > On 08/27/12 21:03, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: > >> On 27/08/2012 19:06, Christian Laursen wrote: > >>> On 08/27/12 18:49, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: > rc.conf: > > (I'm not

Re: IPv6 default route. Can't see the wood for the trees.

On 8/27/2012 12:27 PM, Christian Laursen wrote: > On 08/27/12 21:03, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: >> On 27/08/2012 19:06, Christian Laursen wrote: >>> On 08/27/12 18:49, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: rc.conf: (I'm not convinced that obfuscating the addresses is worth the confusion) >>

Re: IPv6 default route. Can't see the wood for the trees.

On 08/27/12 21:03, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: On 27/08/2012 19:06, Christian Laursen wrote: On 08/27/12 18:49, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: rc.conf: (I'm not convinced that obfuscating the addresses is worth the confusion) ipv6_gateway_enable="YES" ip6addrctl_verbose="YES" rtadvd_enable="YES" rtadvd_

Re: IPv6 default route. Can't see the wood for the trees.

to acquire addresses with the right prefix, the autoconfigured default route is a link-local address. Some bits of the internet think that's ok. Other bits don't. Bits of the internet does not see anything about whether your default gateway is link-local or not and do not care. T

Re: IPv6 default route. Can't see the wood for the trees.

autoconfigured default route is a link-local address. Some bits of the internet think that's ok. Other bits don't. Bits of the internet does not see anything about whether your default gateway is link-local or not and do not care. The default gateway on the box that I'm writi

Re: IPv6 default route. Can't see the wood for the trees.

On 2012-08-27 19:22, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: The man page seemed to suggest that the defaults should work: Try this option for each interface. Given that it's present in my config, it must've been necessary to use for a one reason or other. addr(str) The address filled into Prefix f

Re: IPv6 default route. Can't see the wood for the trees.

On 27/08/2012 17:56, Stanisław Halik wrote: On 2012-08-27 18:49, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: I'm sure this is a FAQ, but I've been staring at it too long to spot the obvious. rtadvd_interfaces="rl0" Show also /etc/rtadvd.conf. Here's mine: kronstadt ~# cat /etc/rtadvd.conf vr0::rdnss="2001:470

Re: IPv6 default route. Can't see the wood for the trees.

On 2012-08-27 18:49, John Hawkes-Reed wrote: I'm sure this is a FAQ, but I've been staring at it too long to spot the obvious. rtadvd_interfaces="rl0" Show also /etc/rtadvd.conf. Here's mine: kronstadt ~# cat /etc/rtadvd.conf vr0::rdnss="2001:470:600d:dead::1":dnssl="misaki.pl":addr="2001:4

IPv6 default route. Can't see the wood for the trees.

manage to acquire addresses with the right prefix, the autoconfigured default route is a link-local address. Some bits of the internet think that's ok. Other bits don't. Trying to ping6/traceroute6 out to (say) Google works on the BSD box, but not on the clients. Do I need to be runn

Re: 8.1R: ppp default route uses wrong Netif (with pppoe)

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 07:31:32PM +0400, Michael BlackHeart wrote: > As I understand this isn't a bug but a mistype or misunderstand of config ( > see man ppp.conf ) > > I'm running myself 8.0, 8.1 and currently 8.STABLE with pppoe in this way > and never have a problem as many peolpe do. > Look

Re: 8.1R: ppp default route uses wrong Netif (with pppoe)

As I understand this isn't a bug but a mistype or misunderstand of config ( see man ppp.conf ) I'm running myself 8.0, 8.1 and currently 8.STABLE with pppoe in this way and never have a problem as many peolpe do. Look in listing > my-provider: > set line PPPoE:nfe0 Here's some "set line" and sho

Re: 8.1R: ppp default route uses wrong Netif (with pppoe)

0 1885 tun0 > > With the upgrade to 8.1R the default route points to 'nfe0', i.e. the > device used to talk pppoe, instead of tun0. > This causes a number of failures which prevent operation. That's strange ... I have a simuilar setup on my router which

8.1R: ppp default route uses wrong Netif (with pppoe)

establish a route using 'tun0' as the device DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire default81.174.0.1 UGS 0 1885 tun0 With the upgrade to 8.1R the default route points to 'nfe0', i.e. the device used to

Re: Possible regression in ifconfig under7.0 - removes valid default route

ed out the machine was inaccessible from anything other than the local VLAN and continued diagnostics determined that the process of changing the IP had also removed the default route. This was clearly unexpected behaviour as the new IP was on the same VLAN as the old IP and hence no routing table u

Re: Possible regression in ifconfig under7.0 - removes valid default route

ecame inaccessible. After some investigation it turned out the machine > was inaccessible from anything other than the local VLAN and continued > diagnostics determined that the process of changing the IP had also > removed the default route. > > This was clearly unexpected behaviou

Possible regression in ifconfig under7.0 - removes valid default route

e from anything other than the local VLAN and continued diagnostics determined that the process of changing the IP had also removed the default route. This was clearly unexpected behaviour as the new IP was on the same VLAN as the old IP and hence no routing table updates should be required. I don&#

BOOTP and no default route

Is there any way to prevent the BOOTP client from injecting a default route? When I originally set things up our DHCP server would not send a default route because there was no gateway, local only. If you leave out the default route, the server will try proxy-arp when ends up putting a

Re: Disappearing IPv6 default route

John Hay wrote: -} else if (req == RTM_ADD && SDL(gate)->sdl_alen == 0) { +} else if (req == RTM_ADD && SDL(gate)->sdl_alen == 0 && +(rt->rt_flags & RTF_HOST) != 0) { ln->ln_state = ND6_LLINFO_INCOMPLETE; >> Please do MFC. This patch seem

Re: Disappearing IPv6 default route

> > > >> -} else if (req == RTM_ADD && SDL(gate)->sdl_alen == 0) { > >> +} else if (req == RTM_ADD && SDL(gate)->sdl_alen == 0 && > >> +(rt->rt_flags & RTF_HOST) != 0) { > >> ln->ln_state = ND6_LLINFO_INCOMPLETE; > > Please do MFC. This patch seems to have

Re: Disappearing IPv6 default route

Martin Blapp wrote: > > Hi, > > Will you MFC before Beta 2 ? > > Martin > >> -} else if (req == RTM_ADD && SDL(gate)->sdl_alen == 0) { >> +} else if (req == RTM_ADD && SDL(gate)->sdl_alen == 0 && >> +(rt->rt_flags & RTF_HOST) != 0) { >> ln->ln_state = ND6

Re: Disappearing IPv6 default route

Hi, Will you MFC before Beta 2 ? Martin - } else if (req == RTM_ADD && SDL(gate)->sdl_alen == 0) { + } else if (req == RTM_ADD && SDL(gate)->sdl_alen == 0 && + (rt->rt_flags & RTF_HOST) != 0) { ln->ln_state = ND6_LLINFO_INC

Re: Disappearing IPv6 default route

On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 08:33:11PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > > Dear list, > > I've had IPv6 connectivity for some years via an IPv6 in IPv4 gif tunnel > courtesy of my ISP. However, about a week ago, when I upgraded to > 6.2-PRERELEASE, I noticed it had mysteriously stopped working. (It ma

Disappearing IPv6 default route

this weekend I set out to find out why. After much head scratching, I discovered that the IPv6 default route was not present on the system. If I added it back manually, voilà: IPv6 connectivity back again ... for a few seconds. This is completely reproducible: happy-idiot-talk:~:% sudo rout

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

t updated to a newer -stable yet then > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > In general, no since tun interfaces can not be destroyed. > > > > > > > > > > Did you mean "in particular"? :-) > >

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

oyed. > > > > > > > > Did you mean "in particular"? :-) > > > > > > > > The problem can be triggered by destroying any interface that can > > > > be destroyed. Just imagine getting rid of a defunct gif tunnel on > > &

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

> > > > In general, no since tun interfaces can not be destroyed. > > > > Did you mean "in particular"? :-) > > > > The problem can be triggered by destroying any interface that can > > be destroyed. Just imagine getting rid of a defunct gif t

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

problem can be triggered by destroying any interface that can > > > be destroyed. Just imagine getting rid of a defunct gif tunnel on > > > a remote router, or removing an unused vlan, and totally losing > > > connectivity to the router due to its default route having

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

problem can be triggered by destroying any interface that can > > > be destroyed. Just imagine getting rid of a defunct gif tunnel on > > > a remote router, or removing an unused vlan, and totally losing > > > connectivity to the router due to its default route having

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

> > > > In general, no since tun interfaces can not be destroyed. > > > > Did you mean "in particular"? :-) > > > > The problem can be triggered by destroying any interface that can > > be destroyed. Just imagine getting rid of a defunct gif t

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

particular"? :-) > > The problem can be triggered by destroying any interface that can > be destroyed. Just imagine getting rid of a defunct gif tunnel on > a remote router, or removing an unused vlan, and totally losing > connectivity to the router due to its default ro

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

Am 16.08.2006 um 10:11 schrieb Yar Tikhiy: In turn, pccard_ether will flush all -inet routes if the rc.conf(5) variable removable_route_flush is set to YES, which is its default setting. Why is it doing that, then? From the commit message for 1.23 for src/ etc/pccard_ether, which introduce

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

imagine getting rid of a defunct gif tunnel on a remote router, or removing an unused vlan, and totally losing connectivity to the router due to its default route having been flushed. The scenario still can be quite unpleasant. I'd rather change the default for $removable_route_flush to

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 10:23:13AM +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote: > > Ouch. Don't ppp(8), OpenVPN etc. destroy the tun interface they're > using when they exit? Flushing all routes then would be rather > harmful. I'm glad I haven't updated to a newer -stable yet then :-) In general, no since t

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:46:39 +0300 (EEST) Dmitry Pryanishnikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello! > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > The question is: Do all the routes really need to be flushed upon > > the destruction of an interface? > > I've killed devd on my test machine (

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

Hello! On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Yar Tikhiy wrote: The question is: Do all the routes really need to be flushed upon the destruction of an interface? I've killed devd on my test machine (yesterday's RELENG_6) and done the following: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ifconfig vlan0 create [EMAIL PROTECTED] ifco

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

Am 16.08.2006 um 10:11 schrieb Yar Tikhiy: On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 07:26:08PM +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote: Am 14.08.2006 um 22:07 schrieb Darryl Yeoh: While destroying gif interface, I notice it also removes IPv4 default route. Has anyone else encountered this ? No problem on a FreeBSD 6.1

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 07:26:08PM +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote: > Am 14.08.2006 um 22:07 schrieb Darryl Yeoh: > > >While destroying gif interface, I notice it also removes IPv4 > >default route. Has anyone else > >encountered this ? > > No problem on a FreeBSD 6.1-

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

Hello! On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Darryl Yeoh wrote: While destroying gif interface, I notice it also removes IPv4 default route. Has anyone else encountered this ? Command: # netstat -rn -f inet Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:17:50AM +0800, Darryl Yeoh wrote: > Nope. Just to be sure, I've tested this on another two machines at my office, > both are Maybe gif interface is your default route? ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailin

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:26:08 +0200 Stefan Bethke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am 14.08.2006 um 22:07 schrieb Darryl Yeoh: > > > While destroying gif interface, I notice it also removes IPv4 > > default route. Has anyone else > > encountered this ? > > N

Re: Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

Am 14.08.2006 um 22:07 schrieb Darryl Yeoh: While destroying gif interface, I notice it also removes IPv4 default route. Has anyone else encountered this ? No problem on a FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE #8: Fri Jun 16 17:15:03 CEST 2006. You don't happen to have any devfs rules that would cause

Default route (IPv4) demolished by destroying clone (gif/gre) interface

Hi lists, While destroying gif interface, I notice it also removes IPv4 default route. Has anyone else encountered this ? Command: # netstat -rn -f inet Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire default10.1.1.1

Re: default route

At 2003-09-25 02:53:18+, Mike Tancsa writes: > > The initial commit was broken causing routes to be deleted > incorrectly. Dont know about 4.8R-P8 but a fix was committed to > RELENG_4. says: RELENG_4_3 1.64.2.10.2.2 Wed S

Re: default route

each the 'net -- and neither could anything else. it appears > the default route wasn't added after the reboot (`netstat -rn|grep > default` == null). checking rc.conf, solution, [EMAIL PROTECTED] uname -a FreeBSD eng.sfo.televoke.net 4.8-RELEASE-p9 FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE-p9 #15: