From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 23 21:30:07 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16E5B16A403; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:30:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dimitry@andric.com) Received: from tensor.andric.com (tensor.andric.com [213.154.244.69]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4AA13C459; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:30:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dimitry@andric.com) Received: from [192.168.0.3] (kilgore.lan.dim [192.168.0.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tensor.andric.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0A7B80E; Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:57:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <45B676A2.5090009@andric.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:57:06 +0100 From: Dimitry Andric User-Agent: Thunderbird 3.0a1 (Windows/20070122) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bruce A. Mah" References: <20070120162936.GA18104@tomcat.kitchenlab.org> <20070121.020741.59649277.hrs@allbsd.org> <45B251A5.4000209@freebsd.org> <45B3CA56.4040106@andric.com> <45B421D4.2050008@freebsd.org> <45B48F0C.9090809@andric.com> <45B63C3E.9010808@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <45B63C3E.9010808@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Hiroki Sato , freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, jhay@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPv6 over gif(4) broken in 6.2-RELEASE? 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: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:30:07 -0000 Bruce A. Mah wrote: > Just to confirm, you're dealing with a gif(4) interface with an > explicitly-configured destination address and a 128-bit prefixlen, yes? Yes. The specific line in my rc.conf is: ipv6_ifconfig_gif0="2001:7b8:2ff:146::2 2001:7b8:2ff:146::1 prefixlen 128" >> Maybe >> there is something else involved too, for example the route command >> itself? > Not sure what you mean by this exactly...???... I mean that it may be that between -RELEASE and -STABLE, other things have changed, e.g. network rc scripts, /sbin/route itself, etc, which may also influence this behaviour. I'm sure more than only nd6.c changed. :) However, for me, with the whole system at -STABLE (as of Jan 11), I verified the following results again just now: nd6.c rev state --------- ----- 1.48.2.12 works 1.48.2.13 works 1.48.2.14 works 1.48.2.15 works 1.48.2.16 doesn't work > Here's what I've tested so far...in the table below, "work" means that > the host route to the destination got installed correctly and "no work" > means that it didn't. > > Base Local Patch Result > ---- ----------- ------ > 6.2-RELEASE Unmodified No work > 6.2-RELEASE Revert nd6.c 1.48.2.{14,15} Work > 6.2-STABLE Unmodified No work > 6.2-STABLE Revert nd6.c 1.48.2.{14,15} Work > 6.2-STABLE Revert nd6.c 1.48.2.16 No work So strangely, this is different from my results... I can't install 6.2-RELEASE on the specific box, alas. > I'm going to write up an entry for the 6.2-RELEASE errata notes > documenting the existence of a problem and a workaround. We still need > to figure out exactly what the right fix is. Testing results from other > users (both 6.2-RELEASE and 6.2-STABLE) would be most welcome. Just FYI, my initial alternative workaround was to use prefixlen 126, e.g.: ipv6_ifconfig_gif0="2001:7b8:2ff:146::2 prefixlen 126" Cheers, Dimitry