Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:12:29 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: "Eugene M. Kim" <20080111.freebsd.org@ab.ote.we.lv> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bridge(4) and IPv6 link-local address Message-ID: <20080630220842.X83875@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <48693E39.4080104@ab.ote.we.lv> References: <48693E39.4080104@ab.ote.we.lv>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008, Eugene M. Kim wrote:
Hi,
> A quick question: Is bridge(4) supposed /not/ to automatically configure an
> IPv6 link-local address?
yes there is a check for this in the code and if remoed (tried that
lately) more things go wrong.
> I'm trying to use it to bridge a wired segment and a wireless segment, and
> router advertisement over bridge0 wouldn't work because, with bridge0 lacking
> a LL address, the router uses a non-LL address as the source address for RA
> packets, which then is ignored as invalid by other IPv6 nodes.
yes, seem something similar lately but ETIMEOUT on debugging. The
problem basically was:
lan bridge ath --- wlan client
the LL address was on the "lan" interface.
ping6 LL on lan from wlan client did not work. I could see the packets
being bridged and visible on all interfaces and even the router on lan
noticed them but there was no reply going to the client. ping6 from
the bridge ``box'' to the wlan client and everything was fine as nd
was seeded.
Removing the check we ended up with the same LL address on both bridge
and the lan interface if I can remember correctly and you do not want
that... it's a bit tricky and there is something that does not work as
expected, right. If you find the time to debug it I'll happily test
patches;-)
--
Bjoern A. Zeeb Stop bit received. Insert coin for new game.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080630220842.X83875>