Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:17:27 +0000 From: Schrodinger <schrodinger@konundrum.org> To: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ipv6 default router Operation not permitted Message-ID: <20130313091727.GA17859@defiant.konundrum.org> In-Reply-To: <3ABB5AED-DEA9-42F6-82A1-FEA9E8BBBDCF@my.gd> References: <20130312225018.GA13589@defiant.konundrum.org> <3ABB5AED-DEA9-42F6-82A1-FEA9E8BBBDCF@my.gd>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--X1bOJ3K7DJ5YkBrT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2013/03/13 02:25, Damien Fleuriot wrote: [...] >=20 >=20 > The network is actually /48 and you get assigned a /64 inside it. >=20 > Set your interface to use the /48 prefix and voodoo will happen (I can as= sure you with a 97% certainty that your default GW is inside the /48). > Of course, using the /48 prefix doesn't mean you can/may use IPs from out= side the /64 that was given you. Voodoo, indeed... I'm sure there's a /48 used somewhere but to be more specific, or rather obvious, my default gateway resides at the boundary of a /56 - 2001:41D0:2:E700::/56 If you pay close attention you will notice that the default gateway is the last usable address from that range. I had already tried this btw, I spent some time confirming what I am was seeing; what was the actual case and ways I could perhaps change the configuration to get it Just Working. However, I would rather it worked correctly and not contain a configuration option that I either do not understand it's necessity nor do I see it as necessary. I don't claim to know IPv6 inside and out but one consideration I had was that because of the host route for the default gateway FreeBSD does not solicit for the "on-link gateway" because the interface is not set=20 to ACCEPT_RTADV. But that doesn't make immediate sense. Corrections and education welcome. >=20 >=20 > Kindly reply with topic "SOLVED" if that fixed you up, that googlers in t= he future may find the solution easily. I would, but IMO this isn't the most optimal solution; changing my prefix length so that I can reach the gateway... Can this kind of host routing just not be done ? The way I see this issue is that without ACCEPT_RTADV on my interface FreeBSD won't attempt Neighbour Solicitation for the default gateway but I am uncertain why this is the case. Bug or policy or That's How It Works. C. --=20 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur. MSN: schro5@hotmail.com ICQ: 112562229 GPG: http://www.konundrum.org/schro.asc --X1bOJ3K7DJ5YkBrT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJRQEQlAAoJEBBi7cjNKnTjKMUP/2YmdQ0buk+D/aF6Gzi5IWjh BQpu/UOAZLRf15dwiQVQhL13uC/mZb+JftwTVHoUtMNtyd/hQ+CLeIOZSzj9LqsX nC8kwFhJvStQMcESo0F9mZ+ejcae8PIK6n6V4t/hicLjQsuiJt+ujekdUL55CKlW ABnh/sb2Bnz5IXKoVQ/Bp/0WG68KVlo2YtNmInOBd8+HxXUil4d8yunU8cxqdHgC kuXNjmVx+EtcAgeTpmcx73fOW1n/Y2KfjvdZiSyQIbaVs0yBp2W8AJftQQrPXlXn U6RScWpUyssFlASapNjUkoKHHfDElzz2WHDDtEy5CSaCWT/5ltesh8z+tETgBY6G YyfNMykMYbmbHsDdy62JXksrqLyjmwrCEp0gmedVmQiCqIsakCUl7st71RSSlqe5 jbDxBj5DK7AVWSv/kixAI3o7dzp54AmvaVOJsr5tnx5xPLblI3Zt7FItyzUCIQ0T N09smD1OTLEIFcJz6PT7Nv/epSllNVs+r3vHFrKxxCqa09T+rhrc/A7WHG7l8Oxt pWg+cCwtqw4YX2BaP9koY+cgwEnHNTQq7/UFqxsK98E9LOUkns7NDBnpooQlNmEO UTkpW7Bi/y/ouqlbcKCU5fOQeOj2XZYkNSsCnwHOuXglp8LJ0M1guyICobhbTGq8 UBrwsZPOKyTJ3p+JF/oK =C0Wj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --X1bOJ3K7DJ5YkBrT--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130313091727.GA17859>