Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 00:35:00 +0000 (UTC) From: Marcin Cieslak <saper@saper.info> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPv6 not responding on some aliases (recent 8-stable) 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?slrnjfsm5c.1nr7.saper>