From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Dec 31 00:35:16 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 A4188106566B
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:35:16 +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 5ECDB8FC1D
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:35:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <freebsd-net@m.gmane.org>) id 1Rgmul-0000jG-Km
	for freebsd-net@freebsd.org; Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:35:11 +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 <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:35:11 +0100
Received: from saper by l.saper.info with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:35:11 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
From: Marcin Cieslak <saper@saper.info>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:35:00 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://saper.info
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <slrnjfsm5c.1nr7.saper@saper.info>
References: <slrnjf53o4.2d1.saper@saper.info>
	<F2005BBF-1808-4E63-B5F3-71361A95008A@lists.zabbadoz.net>
	<slrnjf6s3g.i0d.saper@saper.info>
	<C72FCBE6-AC3B-486B-B487-DA1FDA1F4474@lists.zabbadoz.net>
	<slrnjf75bk.i0d.saper@saper.info>
	<AEB320C2-0345-436E-91B3-CBA760FEF37A@lists.zabbadoz.net>
	<20111230145854.GA22414@DataIX.net>
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 <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:35:16 -0000

> I have seen this behavior before when one of the addresses on an interface =
> is in a DMZ while the others are not. But this was with IPv4. I would assum=
> e IPv6 would have acted the same way but left it untested as it was not cri=
> tical. Take this as informational only and double check your switches, fire=
> walls, etc...

Unfortunately, this is a hosting provider. I have rebooted the box
to use their custom rescue netboot image (based on FreeBSD 8.0 running
on QEMU) and ... still one of the addresses didn't work in this setup.
However, two reboots later situation returned to normal, and all
IPv6 addresses respond. NDP table theory sounds plausible to me,
except... connection establishment to the IPv6 address port 22/tcp
takes sometimes noticeably too long (other TCP ports are usually fine).

But this is probably another story...

//Marcin