From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 5 16:23:18 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9C7916A518 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 16:23:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mav@mavhome.dp.ua) Received: from cmail.optima.ua (cmail.optima.ua [195.248.191.121]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB6B043D53 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2006 16:23:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mav@mavhome.dp.ua) X-Spam-Level: 50 [XX] (100%) BAYESIAN TRAINING: 90-99 Received: from [195.248.178.122] (account mav@alkar.net HELO [192.168.3.5]) by cmail.optima.ua (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.11) with ESMTPA id 17069255 for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:23:16 +0300 Message-ID: <45253174.2070506@mavhome.dp.ua> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:23:16 +0300 From: Alexander Motin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060414 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <1160011383.00612905.1159998602@10.7.7.3> <1160054584.00613108.1160042401@10.7.7.3> In-Reply-To: <1160054584.00613108.1160042401@10.7.7.3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: Point-to-Point interfaces and routing X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:23:18 -0000 JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote: >>Questions: >>1. If I look for the routing tables I see: >>fe80::211:2fff:fea9:7627%ng0 fe80::211:2fff:fea9:7627%ng0 UHL ng0 >>fe80::211:2fff:fea9:7627%tun0 link#3 UHL lo0 > >>So now I can ping ip on tun0, but can't on ng0. Why did they different >>and what is right? > > Which "version" of 6.1-STABLE are you using? I guess this is due to a > bug that was fixed recently. A fix was already MFC'ed to RELENG_6 on > September 29 (at rev. 1.51.2.10). Thanks! After cvsup this problem gone. Now i have: fe80::202:b3ff:feb2:534b%ng0 link#4 UHL lo0 >>3. mpd ppp daemon on interface up event adds route for the local ip to >>the lo0. Is it right way? And how in theory it must work for IPv6? > > At least we don't have to do that for IPv6. The kernel (IPv6 stack) > is designed to install the loopback route for any local address, > whether it's on a p2p interface or not. Is the anybody can explain source of this behaviour for IPv4? -- Alexander Motin