Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:16:27 +0100 From: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> To: Schrodinger <schrodinger@konundrum.org> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ipv6 default router Operation not permitted Message-ID: <B04CE0AC-9917-4D3E-9159-99D6C7095B87@my.gd> In-Reply-To: <20130313091727.GA17859@defiant.konundrum.org> References: <20130312225018.GA13589@defiant.konundrum.org> <3ABB5AED-DEA9-42F6-82A1-FEA9E8BBBDCF@my.gd> <20130313091727.GA17859@defiant.konundrum.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13 Mar 2013, at 10:17, Schrodinger <schrodinger@konundrum.org> wrote: > On 2013/03/13 02:25, Damien Fleuriot wrote: >=20 > [...] >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> The network is actually /48 and you get assigned a /64 inside it. >>=20 >> Set your interface to use the /48 prefix and voodoo will happen (I can as= sure you with a 97% certainty that your default GW is inside the /48). >> Of course, using the /48 prefix doesn't mean you can/may use IPs from out= side the /64 that was given you. >=20 > Voodoo, indeed... I'm sure there's a /48 used somewhere but to be more > specific, or rather obvious, my default gateway resides at the boundary > of a /56 - 2001:41D0:2:E700::/56 If you pay close attention you will > notice that the default gateway is the last usable address from that > range. I had already tried this btw, I spent some time confirming what I > am was seeing; what was the actual case and ways I could perhaps change > the configuration to get it Just Working. However, I would rather it > worked correctly and not contain a configuration option that I either do > not understand it's necessity nor do I see it as necessary. >=20 > I don't claim to know IPv6 inside and out but one consideration I had > was that because of the host route for the default gateway FreeBSD does > not solicit for the "on-link gateway" because the interface is not set=20 > to ACCEPT_RTADV. But that doesn't make immediate sense. >=20 > Corrections and education welcome. >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Kindly reply with topic "SOLVED" if that fixed you up, that googlers in t= he future may find the solution easily. >=20 > I would, but IMO this isn't the most optimal solution; changing my > prefix length so that I can reach the gateway... Can this kind of host > routing just not be done ? The way I see this issue is that without > ACCEPT_RTADV on my interface FreeBSD won't attempt Neighbour > Solicitation for the default gateway but I am uncertain why this is the > case. Bug or policy or That's How It Works. >=20 > C. > --=20 The thing is, your gateway sitting there in the middle of a /48 or /56 has t= o do with how OVH distributes IPv6 prefixes and how they configure their rou= ters. FreeBSD's hardly responsible here. I've had the very same problem with the very same host, hence why I immediat= ely pointed out using a smaller prefix. This is the same use case as getting A /29 assignment inside a /24, but havi= ng to use /24 anyway because the host: - doesn't want to bother configuring a gateway for each customer within its /= 24 (likely the case with ipv6) - doesn't want to waste IPs (likely the case with ipv4) Using a smaller prefix of /56 effectively puts you in the correct network an= d gives you the ability to reach the GW, just keep to your /64 for assignmen= ts ;)=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B04CE0AC-9917-4D3E-9159-99D6C7095B87>