From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 22 02:26:41 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21EFF16A400 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:26:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bmah@freebsd.org) Received: from a.mail.sonic.net (a.mail.sonic.net [64.142.16.245]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B648D13C457 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:26:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bmah@freebsd.org) Received: from [64.142.31.109] (phantom.kitchenlab.org [64.142.31.109]) (authenticated bits=0) by a.mail.sonic.net (8.13.8.Beta0-Sonic/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l0M2QXhK009144 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:26:39 -0800 Message-ID: <45B420D5.4040903@freebsd.org> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:26:29 -0800 From: "Bruce A. Mah" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Macintosh/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Hay References: <20070120162936.GA18104@tomcat.kitchenlab.org> <20070121073244.GA80811@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <20070121073244.GA80811@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 OpenPGP: id=5ba052c3 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigD15351770AADCEA6312F1D02" Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPv6 over gif(4) broken in 6.2-RELEASE? 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: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:26:41 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigD15351770AADCEA6312F1D02 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If memory serves me right, John Hay wrote: > On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 08:29:36AM -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote: >> I'm observing a problem with IPv6 over gif(4) tunnels on 6.2-RELEASE >> and recent 6-STABLE, namely that I can't seem to be able to pass >> traffic over them. >> >> Essentially, when I configure a gif interface like this: >> >> # ifconfig gif0 inet6 aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd::1 aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd::2 pr= efixlen 128 >> >> the interface should add a host route to aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd::2 >> through gif0. This is necessary to be able to pass traffic over the >> tunnel, particularly since the source and destination addresses of the= >> link don't need to have any relationship to each other. >=20 > I only have one IPv6 over IPv4/gif tunnel and ther I use only my side > of the address, something like this: >=20 > ifconfig gif0 inet6 2001:4200:ffff:5::2 prefixlen 64 >=20 > And then bgp on top of this. It seems to work fine on -current built > after my change.=20 I believe the difference between your situation and mine is that your gif0 interface is setup with a prefixlen < 128, which doesn't specifically require a host route to the interface of the destination. This is actually handled specially in several parts of the IPv6 stack. > Well it seems that even my stuff does not always work perfectly with th= at > change (1.48.2.15), so maybe we should revert it and I will search for > yet other ways to make FreeBSD's IPv6 code to actually work for our stu= ff. > > My "stuff" is a wireless IPv6 only network running in adhoc mode with > olsrd as the routing protocol. The problem is that all nodes on a subne= t > cannot "see" each other, so olsrd needs to add routes to a node through= > another node. Sometimes, just to complicate matters a little more, you > would want to have more than one network card in a host, all with the s= ame > subnet address. (For instance on a high site, with sector antennas.) >=20 > The case that I found that still does not work reliably, is if olsrd ad= d > the route and route is not immediately used, then the nd code will time= > it out and remove it. >=20 > So, I guess if you guys think I should revert my stuff, just say so. >=20 > And if you have a solution for my problem, just say so too. :-) This sounds kind of interesting! I'm concerned that this bug seems (at least in my testing) to be present in 6.2-RELEASE. I'm not 100% sure what's the right thing to do at this point. Thanks, Bruce. --------------enigD15351770AADCEA6312F1D02 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFtCDZ2MoxcVugUsMRAg7+AKDv3pIMZjkW2N5A2LHEkmz8rrWN4ACfXKhz JJ0uwCW8VBWAOoLa8aSKh8E= =/jYq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigD15351770AADCEA6312F1D02--