Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:26:52 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 233283] IPv6 routing problem when using FreeBSD as a VPS at a cloud provider Message-ID: <bug-233283-7501-KdgQhpigoS@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-233283-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-233283-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D233283 jinmei@wide.ad.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jinmei@wide.ad.jp --- Comment #12 from jinmei@wide.ad.jp --- I don't think this text is relevant to the topic: --snip-- If the source address of the packet prompting the solicitation is the same as one of the addresses assigned to the outgoing interface, that address SHOULD be placed in the IP Source Address of the outgoing solicitation. Otherwise, any one of the addresses assigned to the interface should be used. --snip-- The "otherwise" case is basically about a forwarding node (router), in which case the source address of the packet being forwarded is normally different from any of the outgoing interface of the forwarding node. Obviously this = case should be an exception to the SHOULD. As far as I know FreeBSD is complian= t to this spec. Besides, I don't see any relevance of the source address selection of outgo= ing NS to this issue. The problem description is a bit unclear, but I don't see anything in the FreeBSD's implementation that may be related to this trouble and is not RFC-compliant. If I were to guess, the expected operation here is to allow= the user to manually specify an on-link prefix (in this case, that would be <router's IPv6 address>/128). As far as I know there's no RFC that require= s a host to implement such a manual configuration. But supporting it may not b= e a bad idea. And, if we add support for it, I'd do so by extending 'ndp' so t= hat it allows the user to manually create an entry that would be listed by 'ndp -p', rather than allowing route(8) to tweak the routing table that causes t= he same effect (which b72db1d3321d7a80f4da3f727765bcc200f30278 of the dragonfly patch seems to do). --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-233283-7501-KdgQhpigoS>