From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 26 16:05:28 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B016D106564A for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:05:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gpalmer@freebsd.org) Received: from noop.in-addr.com (mail.in-addr.com [IPv6:2001:470:8:162::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804858FC0C for ; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:05:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gjp by noop.in-addr.com with local (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1R8DgN-000E8A-5E; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:05:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:05:27 -0400 From: Gary Palmer To: Matt Smith Message-ID: <20110926160527.GD57708@in-addr.com> References: <20110926132923.GB57708@in-addr.com> <20110926142114.GC57708@in-addr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gpalmer@freebsd.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on noop.in-addr.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gif interface not passing IPv6 packets 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: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:05:28 -0000 On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 04:04:00PM +0100, Matt Smith wrote: > On 26 September 2011 15:21, Gary Palmer wrote: > > Smells like a routing table problem or similar configuration problem. > > On my tunnel endpoint, admitedly running 7.4 not 8.x or head, pings > > to the LOCAL endpoint of the gif0 tunnel go over lo0, not the external > > interface (gif0). ?I believe that is true for all IPv4 or IPv6 traffic. > > Interesting. You could be right then. But I still don't understand > what could have changed as the rc.conf configuration for this is > identical to what it was before the power cut. The deprecated part > just makes the outgoing source address algorithm favour the vr0 > address, but the same happens no matter if I include that or not. Not sure, however an experiment may be in order # ifconfig gif0 ifconfig: interface gif0 does not exist # ifconfig gif0 create # ifconfig gif0 tunnel 1.2.3.4 # ifconfig gif0 inet6 2abc::2 2abc::1 prefixlen 128 # netstat -nr -f inet6 | grep 2abc 2abc::1 link#8 UHL gif0 2abc::2 link#8 UHL lo0 # ifconfig gif0 destroy See if your routing table is correct after the test you proposed earlier. Gary