Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 08:56:45 +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-233283-7501-2Z0wXzXAUa@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 --- Comment #14 from Andrey V. Elsukov <ae@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #13) > (In reply to Andrey V. Elsukov from comment #7) > Isn't this patch a bit of a kludge? The existing check for the entry in = our > L2 entry cache should be sufficient =E2=80=94 why don't we populate LLE c= ache with > on-link off-prefix routers? >=20 > It's not clear to me the exact ordering, but it seems somehow we get a > router advertisement and insert it into our routing table without populat= ing > the LLE of the sender in the LLE cache. Such route can by added by administrator. The main user's complain is that = for IPv4 you can add route like `route add -host A.B.C.D -iface em0`, but for I= Pv6 this won't work, because you need to have configured prefix on the interfac= e, without the prefix ND6 will think that address on this link is not neighbor, and won't send NS, and you will get ENOBUFS error when try to send a packet= to specified host. This patch adds the check and now the kernel at least will = try to resolve address on the interface. So, in general you are able to add on-link route to your gateway like this: route -6 add -host fd00::1 -iface em0 --=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-233283-7501-2Z0wXzXAUa>