Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 05:58:27 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 261129] IPv6 default route vanishes with rtadvd/rtsold Message-ID: <bug-261129-7501-dJd7IIGhqO@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-261129-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-261129-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D261129 --- Comment #17 from Marek Zarychta <zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> --- Update A couple of days ago I rewrote the set of slapdash PF rules suspecting them= as the cause, especially initially abused "rtable" statements. The "rtable" had been replaced with "reply-to" or deleted where possible and it was the right step. It is worth mentioning that a few rules with "rtable" were preserved though. When the issue got sorted out, to find the culprit one of the borked rules used previously was reintroduced: "pass in quick on gif0 inet6 to ($gif_if) rtable 1" which led to the corruption of the default route in FIBs 0 and 1 within a f= ew hours. Maybe this happens due to incorrectly recognised protocol 41?=20 Final conclusions: 1. FreeBSD routing stack is capable of using two different IPv6 GUA subnets= on the same interface on both CURRENT and 13-STABLE. 3. The rules with "rtable" statements regarding IPv6 traffic should be introduced with care in PF(4) configuration file and avoided when possible. 3. IPv6 on FreeBSD still needs more testing, especially in multihomed scena= rios where multiple FIBs are involved. It is probably my fault, I am sorry for making noise on the frebsd-net@ mai= ling list and hijacking this PR, but provided feedback might be useful. If you s= till consider this a bug, please let me know, and I will submit a new PR. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-261129-7501-dJd7IIGhqO>