From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 8 13:00:32 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D7201065672 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:00:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D5F8FC13 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:00:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q18D0Wmi067565 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:00:32 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q18D0Wnc067564; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:00:32 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:00:32 GMT Message-Id: <201202081300.q18D0Wnc067564@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org From: Gleb Smirnoff Cc: Subject: Re: kern/161899: Repeating RTM_MISS packets causing high CPU load for ntpd X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Gleb Smirnoff List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:00:32 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/161899; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Steven Hartland Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/161899: Repeating RTM_MISS packets causing high CPU load for ntpd Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 16:59:44 +0400 > Any update on this, would have been nice to see a fix hit before > 9.0. If you need any more information please let me know. AFAIK, this is no longer a problem in 9.0-RELEASE or in HEAD. The cause for this number of misses is absense of a route for IPv4 mapped block in IPv6 routing table. Here it is: # netstat -rn -f inet6 Routing tables Internet6: Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire ::/96 ::1 UGRS lo0 Some rc.d script installs this prefix in 9.0 and 10.0. If it hasn't been merged to stable/8, then it needs to be found and merged. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.