Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2022 09:32:01 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: virtualization@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 262292] Seemingly not possible for IPv6 to function over tap devices on if_bridge Message-ID: <bug-262292-27103@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D262292 Bug ID: 262292 Summary: Seemingly not possible for IPv6 to function over tap devices on if_bridge Product: Base System Version: 13.0-STABLE Hardware: amd64 OS: Any Status: New Keywords: bhyve, ipv6 Severity: Affects Only Me Priority: --- Component: bhyve Assignee: virtualization@FreeBSD.org Reporter: paul.g.webster@googlemail.com Good day all, I run a set of VM's on an if_bridge: bridge103: flags=3D8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mt= u 1500 ether 58:9c:fc:10:ff:f5 inet 192.168.103.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.103.255 inet6 fe80::5a9c:fcff:fe10:fff5%bridge103 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4 inet6 2a01:4f8:190:1183::103:1 prefixlen 64 id 00:00:00:00:00:00 priority 32768 hellotime 2 fwddelay 15 maxage 20 holdcnt 6 proto rstp maxaddr 2000 timeout 1200 root id 00:00:00:00:00:00 priority 32768 ifcost 0 port 0 member: tap1033 flags=3D143<LEARNING,DISCOVER,AUTOEDGE,AUTOPTP> ifmaxaddr 0 port 9 priority 128 path cost 2000000 member: tap1032 flags=3D143<LEARNING,DISCOVER,AUTOEDGE,AUTOPTP> ifmaxaddr 0 port 8 priority 128 path cost 2000000 member: tap1031 flags=3D143<LEARNING,DISCOVER,AUTOEDGE,AUTOPTP> ifmaxaddr 0 port 11 priority 128 path cost 2000000 member: tap1030 flags=3D143<LEARNING,DISCOVER,AUTOEDGE,AUTOPTP> ifmaxaddr 0 port 10 priority 128 path cost 2000000 groups: bridge nd6 options=3D63<PERFORMNUD,ACCEPT_RTADV,AUTO_LINKLOCAL,NO_RADR> IPv4 functionality is working as expected, and ipv6 on the host works perfectly. However no guest may ping6 its closest host inet6 address (tap1033->bridge1= 03) and get a response. tcpdump reveals that bridge103 received the request, but does not appear to= do anything about it: root@de1:/usr/venv/bhyve/init # tcpdump -vvi bridge103 icmp6 tcpdump: listening on bridge103, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 262144 bytes 20:11:53.073960 IP6 (hlim 255, next-header ICMPv6 (58) payload length: 32) 2a01:4f8:190:1183::103:2 > ff02::1:ff03:1: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, neighbor solicitation, length 32, who has 2a01:4f8:190:1183::103:1 source link-address option (1), length 8 (1): 00:d3:4d:be:3f:ab 0x0000: 00d3 4dbe 3fab 20:11:54.120586 IP6 (hlim 255, next-header ICMPv6 (58) payload length: 32) 2a01:4f8:190:1183::103:2 > ff02::1:ff03:1: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, neighbor solicitation, length 32, who has 2a01:4f8:190:1183::103:1 source link-address option (1), length 8 (1): 00:d3:4d:be:3f:ab 0x0000: 00d3 4dbe 3fab The same is true for all other VM's that are connected via virtio/tap to an if_bridge, bearing in mind the ICMP request is seen perhaps the problem is = with if_bridge. Unfortunatly I am now somewhat out of my depth with bhyve/if_bridge_tap, I = have tried everything I can possible think of and am hoping someone here knows w= hat is causing such an issue. Notable the inet6 that is directly assigned to each bridge is reachable from the outside, that would be these: em0: inet6 2a01:4f8:190:1183::1:1 prefixlen 64 lo0: inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 bridge102: inet6 2a01:4f8:190:1183::102:1 prefixlen 64 bridge103: inet6 2a01:4f8:190:1183::103:1 prefixlen 64 bridge104: inet6 2a01:4f8:190:1183::104:1 prefixlen 64 As the VM in the above examples was 2a01:4f8:190:1183::103:2 assigned to bridge 103, there should be no way it failed to get a response that I can s= ee --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-262292-27103>