Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 21:57:06 +0100 From: Dimitry Andric <dimitry@andric.com> To: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, jhay@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPv6 over gif(4) broken in 6.2-RELEASE? Message-ID: <45B676A2.5090009@andric.com> In-Reply-To: <45B63C3E.9010808@freebsd.org> References: <20070120162936.GA18104@tomcat.kitchenlab.org> <20070121.020741.59649277.hrs@allbsd.org> <45B251A5.4000209@freebsd.org> <45B3CA56.4040106@andric.com> <45B421D4.2050008@freebsd.org> <45B48F0C.9090809@andric.com> <45B63C3E.9010808@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> Just to confirm, you're dealing with a gif(4) interface with an
> explicitly-configured destination address and a 128-bit prefixlen, yes?
Yes. The specific line in my rc.conf is:
ipv6_ifconfig_gif0="2001:7b8:2ff:146::2 2001:7b8:2ff:146::1 prefixlen 128"
>> Maybe
>> there is something else involved too, for example the route command
>> itself?
> Not sure what you mean by this exactly...???...
I mean that it may be that between -RELEASE and -STABLE, other things
have changed, e.g. network rc scripts, /sbin/route itself, etc, which
may also influence this behaviour. I'm sure more than only nd6.c
changed. :)
However, for me, with the whole system at -STABLE (as of Jan 11), I
verified the following results again just now:
nd6.c rev state
--------- -----
1.48.2.12 works
1.48.2.13 works
1.48.2.14 works
1.48.2.15 works
1.48.2.16 doesn't work
> Here's what I've tested so far...in the table below, "work" means that
> the host route to the destination got installed correctly and "no work"
> means that it didn't.
>
> Base Local Patch Result
> ---- ----------- ------
> 6.2-RELEASE Unmodified No work
> 6.2-RELEASE Revert nd6.c 1.48.2.{14,15} Work
> 6.2-STABLE Unmodified No work
> 6.2-STABLE Revert nd6.c 1.48.2.{14,15} Work
> 6.2-STABLE Revert nd6.c 1.48.2.16 No work
So strangely, this is different from my results... I can't install
6.2-RELEASE on the specific box, alas.
> I'm going to write up an entry for the 6.2-RELEASE errata notes
> documenting the existence of a problem and a workaround. We still need
> to figure out exactly what the right fix is. Testing results from other
> users (both 6.2-RELEASE and 6.2-STABLE) would be most welcome.
Just FYI, my initial alternative workaround was to use prefixlen 126,
e.g.:
ipv6_ifconfig_gif0="2001:7b8:2ff:146::2 prefixlen 126"
Cheers,
Dimitry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45B676A2.5090009>