From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org  Mon Jun  5 00:08:11 2017
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495B0BF2F65
 for <freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Mon,  5 Jun 2017 00:08:11 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3706F66187
 for <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org>; Mon,  5 Jun 2017 00:08:11 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118])
 by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v5508Bum046587
 for <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 5 Jun 2017 00:08:11 GMT
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
Subject: [Bug 219699] Issue with IPv6 and neighbor notification
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:08:11 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System
X-Bugzilla-Component: kern
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0-RELEASE
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People
X-Bugzilla-Who: rkoberman@gmail.com
X-Bugzilla-Status: New
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: ---
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-219699-2472-fNr7VbjARw@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-219699-2472@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-219699-2472@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:08:11 -0000

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D219699

--- Comment #9 from rkoberman@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Paul G Webster from comment #8)
That would explain it. I am very surprised that Linux does not use the
link-local address for routing information. That was one of the main reason=
 for
the link-local implementation in IPv6.

Can someone confirm that Linux does not use link-local as the default NDP
communication connection?

Yes, ebtables (on linux) should always allow link-local. No, all routing is=
 not
over link-local. Protocols that communicate to non-adjacent nodes (e.g. BGP)
cannot use link-local.

Glad you tracked this down. You saved the next guy problems.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=