From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 22 20:39:32 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CED3106564A for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:39:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-net@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3298FC14 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:39:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RdpQJ-00061O-6L for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:39:31 +0100 Received: from l.saper.info ([91.121.203.103]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:39:31 +0100 Received: from saper by l.saper.info with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:39:31 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org From: Marcin Cieslak Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:39:16 +0000 (UTC) Organization: http://saper.info Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: l.saper.info User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (FreeBSD) Subject: Re: IPv6 not responding on some aliases (recent 8-stable) 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: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:39:32 -0000 >> Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: >> I initially thought it's a transport layer issue, since previously (before >> I changed configuration) 30%-50% SSH connection attempts succeeded >> (but prefix was wrong on the "primary" IPv6 address :1000). >> Now I get no packets on receiving side at all for those "broken" IPv6 addresses. > > Talk to ywhomever is providing in front of you to > 1) either relax nd6 table limits or > 2) to route a /64 to your host to only have 1 entry in the neighbour table. > > That's most likely the problem given my crystal ball and experience. Thank you for insightful analysis! Seems like this provider has some significant IPv6 takeup, which is good news - sorry for hassle, but problems started after upgrade. I'll talk to my upstream then, thanks! //Marcin