Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:23:16 +0300 From: Alexander Motin <mav@mavhome.dp.ua> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Point-to-Point interfaces and routing Message-ID: <45253174.2070506@mavhome.dp.ua> In-Reply-To: <1160054584.00613108.1160042401@10.7.7.3> References: <1160011383.00612905.1159998602@10.7.7.3> <1160054584.00613108.1160042401@10.7.7.3>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote: >>Questions: >>1. If I look for the routing tables I see: >>fe80::211:2fff:fea9:7627%ng0 fe80::211:2fff:fea9:7627%ng0 UHL ng0 >>fe80::211:2fff:fea9:7627%tun0 link#3 UHL lo0 > >>So now I can ping ip on tun0, but can't on ng0. Why did they different >>and what is right? > > Which "version" of 6.1-STABLE are you using? I guess this is due to a > bug that was fixed recently. A fix was already MFC'ed to RELENG_6 on > September 29 (at rev. 1.51.2.10). Thanks! After cvsup this problem gone. Now i have: fe80::202:b3ff:feb2:534b%ng0 link#4 UHL lo0 >>3. mpd ppp daemon on interface up event adds route for the local ip to >>the lo0. Is it right way? And how in theory it must work for IPv6? > > At least we don't have to do that for IPv6. The kernel (IPv6 stack) > is designed to install the loopback route for any local address, > whether it's on a p2p interface or not. Is the anybody can explain source of this behaviour for IPv4? -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45253174.2070506>