From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 4 23:29:34 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACF6C106566B; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 23:29:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from qing.li@bluecoat.com) Received: from whisker.bluecoat.com (whisker.bluecoat.com [216.52.23.28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C2E88FC1B; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 23:29:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from qing.li@bluecoat.com) Received: from bcs-mail03.internal.cacheflow.com ([10.2.2.95]) by whisker.bluecoat.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n74NTXcg019477; Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:29:33 -0700 (PDT) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:28:13 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20090804053838.I93661@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Problem with latest HEAD and IPv6: in6_ifinit: insertion failed Thread-Index: AcoUxrr79wTfVNb9QxCEAr3Cdrzt1QAlF3DA References: <20090803174617.GJ1292@hoeg.nl> <20090803190934.GK1292@hoeg.nl> <20090803195455.I93661@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <20090804053838.I93661@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> From: "Li, Qing" To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" Cc: Qing Li , FreeBSD Current Subject: RE: Problem with latest HEAD and IPv6: in6_ifinit: insertion failed X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:29:35 -0000 I have a patch ready, which will be committed as soon as it is approved by the release team. --Qing > -----Original Message----- > From: Bjoern A. Zeeb [mailto:bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net] > Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 10:45 PM > To: Li, Qing > Cc: FreeBSD Current; Qing Li > Subject: RE: Problem with latest HEAD and IPv6: in6_ifinit: insertion > failed >=20 > On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Li, Qing wrote: >=20 > >> > >> I then changed the script to s,fxp0,em1,g s,::1,::2,g and re-run: > >> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > >> - > >> dut# sh test.sh > >> 2001:db8::1 0:e0:81:81:13:ad fxp0 permanent R > >> 2001:db8::1 2001:db8::1 UH fxp0 > >> em1: flags=3D8802 metric 0 mtu 1500 > >> ifconfig: ioctl (SIOCAIFADDR): File exists > >> 2001:db8::1 0:e0:81:81:13:ad fxp0 permanent R > >> 2001:db8::2 0:e0:81:81:13:9d em1 permanent R > >> 2001:db8::1 2001:db8::1 UH fxp0 > >> 2001:db8::2 2001:db8::2 UH em1 > >> em1: flags=3D8843 metric 0 mtu > > 1500 > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > > > > > Your output appears to come from either an outdated in6.c > > or a custom version. I expect to see something like the > > following for each interface address from netstat output: > > > > Destination Gateway Flags Netif > > expire > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > 2001:db8::1 link#1 UHS lo0 > > 2001:db8::2 link#2 UHS lo0 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- >=20 > Yes I would as well, unless something bad happens(tm). >=20 > > Please verify your source file. >=20 > bz@dut:/dut/bz/HEAD.svn% ident sys/netinet6/in6.c > sys/netinet6/in6.c: > $KAME: in6.c,v 1.259 2002/01/21 11:37:50 keiichi Exp $ > $FreeBSD: head/sys/netinet6/in6.c 196019 2009-08-01 19:26:27Z > rwatson $ > bz@dut:/dut/bz/HEAD.svn% svn status sys/netinet6/in6.c > bz@dut:/dut/bz/HEAD.svn% >=20 > And as you can see the IFF_POINTOPOINT from your last commit are not > there > anymore: >=20 > 1193 /* > 1194 * Remove the loopback route to the interface address. > 1195 * The check for the current setting of > "nd6_useloopback" is not needed. > 1196 */ > 1197 if (!(ia->ia_ifp->if_flags & IFF_LOOPBACK)) { >=20 > 1776 /* > 1777 * add a loopback route to self > 1778 */ > 1779 if (V_nd6_useloopback && !(ifp->if_flags & > IFF_LOOPBACK)) { >=20 >=20 > /bz >=20 > -- > Bjoern A. Zeeb The greatest risk is not taking one.