On 03.05.22 19:08, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 09:49:48AM +0200, Florian Smeets wrote:
F> On 23.04.22 01:38, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
F> >Hi Florian,
F> >
F> > here is a patch that should help with the IPv6 problem. I'm not
F> > yet committing it, it might be not final.
F>
F> yes
On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 09:49:48AM +0200, Florian Smeets wrote:
F> On 23.04.22 01:38, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
F> >Hi Florian,
F> >
F> > here is a patch that should help with the IPv6 problem. I'm not
F> > yet committing it, it might be not final.
F>
F> yes, the patch resolves the issue. There is
On 23.04.22 01:38, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Hi Florian,
here is a patch that should help with the IPv6 problem. I'm not
yet committing it, it might be not final.
Hi Gleb,
yes, the patch resolves the issue. There is just one SYN packet, and it
gets a reply immediately.
Thanks,
Florian
Ope
> On 23. Apr 2022, at 02:24, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 01:54:25AM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> M> > here is a patch that should help with the IPv6 problem. I'm not
> M> > yet committing it, it might be not final.
> M>
> M> when I was looking at the code, I
> On 23. Apr 2022, at 01:38, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>
> Hi Florian,
>
> here is a patch that should help with the IPv6 problem. I'm not
> yet committing it, it might be not final.
Hi Gleb,
when I was looking at the code, I was also wondering if it would make
more sense to check for M_LOOP.
Howev
Michael,
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 01:54:25AM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote:
M> > here is a patch that should help with the IPv6 problem. I'm not
M> > yet committing it, it might be not final.
M>
M> when I was looking at the code, I was also wondering if it would make
M> more sense to check for M_L
On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 09:19:57AM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
M> > Michael, can you please confirm or decline that you see the packets
M> > that are dropped when you tcpdump on lo0?
M>
M> All the jails are aliased to share a single bridge interface. That
M> results in the route to each jail bei
Hi Florian,
here is a patch that should help with the IPv6 problem. I'm not
yet committing it, it might be not final.
--
Gleb Smirnoff
diff --git a/sys/netinet6/ip6_input.c b/sys/netinet6/ip6_input.c
index 3a13d2a9dc7..625de6d3657 100644
--- a/sys/netinet6/ip6_input.c
+++ b/sys/netinet6/ip6_in
On 4/16/22 01:22, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Hi Florian, Hi Michael,
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 06:11:13PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
M> >> I can reproduce this locally, will try to figure out what is going on.
M> >> If you can bisect it, it would be great.
M> >
M> > Found the culprit 1817be481b8703
On 16.04.22 07:22, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Hi Florian, Hi Michael,
Hi Gleb,
thanks for looking into it.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 06:11:13PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
M> >
M> > Found the culprit 1817be481b8703ae86730b151a6f49cc3022930f. And indeed
M> > toggling net.inet6.ip6.source_address
Hi Florian, Hi Michael,
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 06:11:13PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote:
M> >> I can reproduce this locally, will try to figure out what is going on.
M> >> If you can bisect it, it would be great.
M> >
M> > Found the culprit 1817be481b8703ae86730b151a6f49cc3022930f. And indeed
> On 16. Apr 2022, at 00:05, tue...@freebsd.org wrote:
>
>> On 15. Apr 2022, at 23:39, Florian Smeets wrote:
>>
>> On 15.04.22 21:24, tue...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 15. Apr 2022, at 20:20, Florian Smeets wrote:
Hi,
there seems to be an issue with local IPv6 TCP co
On 4/15/22 17:39, Florian Smeets wrote:
On 15.04.22 21:24, tue...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 15. Apr 2022, at 20:20, Florian Smeets wrote:
Hi,
there seems to be an issue with local IPv6 TCP connections on main. I
have been seeing this for a couple of months at least. pkg upgr on my
webserver ho
> On 15. Apr 2022, at 23:39, Florian Smeets wrote:
>
> On 15.04.22 21:24, tue...@freebsd.org wrote:
>>> On 15. Apr 2022, at 20:20, Florian Smeets wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> there seems to be an issue with local IPv6 TCP connections on main. I have
>>> been seeing this for a couple of mon
On 15.04.22 21:24, tue...@freebsd.org wrote:
On 15. Apr 2022, at 20:20, Florian Smeets wrote:
Hi,
there seems to be an issue with local IPv6 TCP connections on main. I have been
seeing this for a couple of months at least. pkg upgr on my webserver hosting
the pkg repo is very slow, all othe
> On 15. Apr 2022, at 20:20, Florian Smeets wrote:
>
> [bcc to net@ for wider exposure]
>
> Hi,
>
> there seems to be an issue with local IPv6 TCP connections on main. I have
> been seeing this for a couple of months at least. pkg upgr on my webserver
> hosting the pkg repo is very slow, all
On 12/02/19 11:03, Shawn Webb wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I have net.inet6.ip6.use_tempaddr and net.inet6.ip6.prefer_tempaddr
> both set to 1. Yet, I'm not seeing temporary addresses created upon
> receipt of a router advertisement. I'm only seeing the HostID-based
> SLAAC IP be generated. Has something
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:44:42AM -0200, Renato Botelho wrote:
> On 12/02/19 11:03, Shawn Webb wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > I have net.inet6.ip6.use_tempaddr and net.inet6.ip6.prefer_tempaddr
> > both set to 1. Yet, I'm not seeing temporary addresses created upon
> > receipt of a router advertisem
> On 3 Dec 2018, at 08:15, O. Hartmann wrote:
>
>
> The documentation lacks in many aspects how to deal with IPv6, especially
> when it comes
> to "well known things from the old IPv4 world". Since DDNS also is still
> something people
> use with IPv6, MYADDR6 doesn't carry the IPV6 address
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Am Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:32:52 +
Gary Palmer schrieb:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:12:32PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA512
> >
> > My ISP is offering IPv6 only "as an experimental feature", so I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Am Fri, 30 Nov 2018 16:41:02 +
"Bjoern A. Zeeb" schrieb:
Sorry for the late reply, had a long weekend off ...
> On 30 Nov 2018, at 15:59, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
>
> > ## O. Hartmann (ohartm...@walstatt.org):
> >
> >> As far as I kn
As someone who controls both ends of the link (runs the ISP, has service
from the ISP), so far (a bit out of laziness) I have the following
solution...
Now... of note is that we statically assign addresses. This is not just
being nice, but being practical. We deal out IPv4 addresses vi IPCP, but
## Bjoern A. Zeeb (bzeeb-li...@lists.zabbadoz.net):
> No, IPV6CP, to my very best 15 year old memory only negotiates the
> interface identifiers, which are used to generate the link-local addresses.
Ah, you're right - it's IPV6CP-then-NDP, not "IPV6CP or NDP".
I got ahead of the protocol...
Rega
On 11/30/2018 7:12 AM, O. Hartmann wrote:
>
> For IPv6, I only see my local linklocal address, fe80::...
>
> Checking the log of ppp (/var/log/ppp.log), there is also a fe80::
> linklocal address
> assigned to the variable HISADDR. Somehow, the tun0 never obtains a
> IPv6 aprefix so far.
>
> Can so
On 30 Nov 2018, at 15:59, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
> ## O. Hartmann (ohartm...@walstatt.org):
>
>> As far as I know, with the IPv4 stack a IPv4 address is obtained
>> automatically, so I would expect the same for IPv6.
>
> The fun with "automatically" is that there's more than one way...
>
## O. Hartmann (ohartm...@walstatt.org):
> As far as I know, with the IPv4 stack a IPv4 address is obtained
> automatically, so I would expect the same for IPv6.
The fun with "automatically" is that there's more than one way...
DHCPv6 and NDP (IPV6 Neighbour Discovery Protocol/Router Solicitation
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:12:32PM +0100, O. Hartmann wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> My ISP is offering IPv6 only "as an experimental feature", so I had to ask to
> enable the
> IPv6 stack on my connection. I'm using FreeBSD 12-STABLE as the basis for a
> router/fi
Hi,
> On 30 Nov 2018, at 12:12, O. Hartmann wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> My ISP is offering IPv6 only "as an experimental feature", so I had to ask to
> enable the
> IPv6 stack on my connection. I'm using FreeBSD 12-STABLE as the basis for a
> router/firewall/PBX system, FreeBSD's onboard ppp c
On 23 Sep 2018, at 22:10, David P. Discher wrote:
I say yes, especially if we wish to support a IPv6 only system at some
point in the future … which seemed to be a “think” of the few
major IPv6 advocates in the industry.
I guess best practice, this should suck in rc.* config files, and use
v
I say yes, especially if we wish to support a IPv6 only system at some point in
the future … which seemed to be a “think” of the few major IPv6 advocates in
the industry.
I guess best practice, this should suck in rc.* config files, and use v6 if v6
is set via one of the ipv6_* variables.
-
On 2016-02-12 14:07, Kristof Provost wrote:
On 12 Feb 2016, at 15:33, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2016-02-12 08:31, Kristof Provost wrote:
On 12 Feb 2016, at 15:29, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2016-02-12 08:13, Larry Rosenman wrote:
sysctl net.inet.tcp.rfc1323=0
makes it work
Shouldn't the stack d
> On 12 Feb 2016, at 15:33, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
> On 2016-02-12 08:31, Kristof Provost wrote:
>>> On 12 Feb 2016, at 15:29, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>>> On 2016-02-12 08:13, Larry Rosenman wrote:
sysctl net.inet.tcp.rfc1323=0
makes it work
>>> Shouldn't the stack do the right thing h
On 2016-02-12 08:31, Kristof Provost wrote:
On 12 Feb 2016, at 15:29, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2016-02-12 08:13, Larry Rosenman wrote:
sysctl net.inet.tcp.rfc1323=0
makes it work
Shouldn't the stack do the right thing here? For the record, the
other side
is also FreeBSD (10.2-STABLE).
Ye
> On 12 Feb 2016, at 15:29, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
> On 2016-02-12 08:13, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>>
>> sysctl net.inet.tcp.rfc1323=0
>> makes it work
> Shouldn't the stack do the right thing here? For the record, the other side
> is also FreeBSD (10.2-STABLE).
>
Yes, but it’s possible that th
On 2016-02-12 08:13, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2016-02-12 08:02, Kristof Provost wrote:
On 12 Feb 2016, at 10:18, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2016-02-11 20:50, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2016-02-11 14:40, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2016-02-11 14:25, Kristof Provost wrote:
On 11 Feb 2016, at 21:23, L
On 2016-02-12 08:02, Kristof Provost wrote:
On 12 Feb 2016, at 10:18, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2016-02-11 20:50, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2016-02-11 14:40, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2016-02-11 14:25, Kristof Provost wrote:
On 11 Feb 2016, at 21:23, Larry Rosenman wrote:
From which system(s) p
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 07:56:08AM -0600, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> On 2016-02-12 07:45, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 08:50:59PM -0600, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-02-11 14:40, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 2016-02-11 14:25, Kristof Provost wrote:
> >> >
> On 12 Feb 2016, at 10:18, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
> On 2016-02-11 20:50, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>> On 2016-02-11 14:40, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>>> On 2016-02-11 14:25, Kristof Provost wrote:
>>> On 11 Feb 2016, at 21:23, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>>> From which system(s) perspective do you want the
On 2016-02-12 07:45, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 08:50:59PM -0600, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2016-02-11 14:40, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> On 2016-02-11 14:25, Kristof Provost wrote:
>
> On 11 Feb 2016, at 21:23, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> From which system(s) perspective do you
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 08:50:59PM -0600, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> On 2016-02-11 14:40, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
> > On 2016-02-11 14:25, Kristof Provost wrote:
> >
> > On 11 Feb 2016, at 21:23, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> > From which system(s) perspective do you want the packet captures?
> > (Fir
On 2016-02-11 20:50, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2016-02-11 14:40, Larry Rosenman wrote:
On 2016-02-11 14:25, Kristof Provost wrote:
On 11 Feb 2016, at 21:23, Larry Rosenman wrote:
From which system(s) perspective do you want the packet captures?
(Firewall, FreeBSD, Windows)? I wouldn't expect i
On 2016-02-11 14:40, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> On 2016-02-11 14:25, Kristof Provost wrote:
>
> On 11 Feb 2016, at 21:23, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> From which system(s) perspective do you want the packet captures?
> (Firewall, FreeBSD, Windows)? I wouldn't expect it to make much of a
> difference
On 2016-02-11 14:25, Kristof Provost wrote:
>> On 11 Feb 2016, at 21:23, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>> From which system(s) perspective do you want the packet captures?
>> (Firewall, FreeBSD, Windows)?
> I wouldn't expect it to make much of a difference in this case.
> Let's start with whatever is e
> On 11 Feb 2016, at 21:23, Larry Rosenman wrote:
>
> From which system(s) perspective do you want the packet captures?
> (Firewall, FreeBSD, Windows)?
I wouldn’t expect it to make much of a difference in this case.
Let’s start with whatever is easiest.
Regards,
Kristof
___
On 2016-02-11 04:14, Kristof Provost wrote:
On 2016-02-10 20:38:02 (-0600), Larry Rosenman wrote:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206904
I've also posted lots of info to freebsd-net, and not gotten any
response.
Summary:
Cable Modem-> EM0 on a pfSense Firewall (FreeBSD 10.1
On 2016-02-10 20:38:02 (-0600), Larry Rosenman wrote:
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206904
>
> I've also posted lots of info to freebsd-net, and not gotten any
> response.
>
> Summary:
>
> Cable Modem-> EM0 on a pfSense Firewall (FreeBSD 10.1, pfSense 2.2.6)
>
On 2014-09-10 10:05, Kurt Lidl wrote:
> On 9/10/14, 6:10 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
>> On 04.09.2014 18:16, Kurt Lidl wrote:
>>> Greetings all:
>>>
>>> I have a host that recently was upgraded from FreeBSD 9.1
>>> to FreeBSD 9.3. After the upgrade, the IPv6 aliases that
>>> I was setting on vlan
On 9/10/14, 6:10 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote:
On 04.09.2014 18:16, Kurt Lidl wrote:
Greetings all:
I have a host that recently was upgraded from FreeBSD 9.1
to FreeBSD 9.3. After the upgrade, the IPv6 aliases that
I was setting on vlan'd interfaces, no longer get set:
The section of my /etc/r
On 04.09.2014 18:16, Kurt Lidl wrote:
> Greetings all:
>
> I have a host that recently was upgraded from FreeBSD 9.1
> to FreeBSD 9.3. After the upgrade, the IPv6 aliases that
> I was setting on vlan'd interfaces, no longer get set:
>
> The section of my /etc/rc.conf, which worked under 9.1:
>
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 04:05-, Sreenivasa Honnur wrote:
> I am writing a kernel socket program which binds to a IPv6 address, so bind
> always fails with 49. Below is the code snippet I am using, is something
> wrong here?
>
> roundhay# uname -a
> FreeBSD roundhay 9.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 9.1-RELEA
I am writing a kernel socket program which binds to a IPv6 address, so bind
always fails with 49. Below is the code snippet I am using, is something wrong
here?
roundhay# uname -a
FreeBSD roundhay 9.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 9.1-RELEASE #2: Mon Apr 8 16:15:06 IST
2013
root@roundhay:/usr/obj/ho
John Hay wrote
in <20111022193418.ga53...@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za>:
jh> I can maybe just say, I have now upgraded various machines from 7.x or
jh> 8.x to 9 and even though I have read the rc.conf manual I keep tripping
jh> on the new IPv6 rc stuff. Various being client, server and router /
jh>
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 04:13:36PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote
> in <4ea23c08.6060...@freebsd.org>:
>
> do> On 10/19/2011 00:29, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> do> > Mattia Rossi wrote
> do> > in <4e9dfe11.2070...@swin.edu.au>:
> do> >
> do> > mr> So the _ipv6 bit doesn't take care o
Doug Barton wrote
in <4ea23c08.6060...@freebsd.org>:
do> On 10/19/2011 00:29, Hiroki Sato wrote:
do> > Mattia Rossi wrote
do> > in <4e9dfe11.2070...@swin.edu.au>:
do> >
do> > mr> So the _ipv6 bit doesn't take care of passing "inet6" to ifconfig
do> > mr> automatically?
do> >
do> > No. You
On 10/19/2011 00:29, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Mattia Rossi wrote
> in <4e9dfe11.2070...@swin.edu.au>:
>
> mr> So the _ipv6 bit doesn't take care of passing "inet6" to ifconfig
> mr> automatically?
>
> No. You always need to add the inet6 keyword wherever needed.
That seems redundant, and contra
On 18. Oct 2011, at 22:30 , Mattia Rossi wrote:
> On 19/10/2011 08:16, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>>
>> On 18. Oct 2011, at 20:00 , Johann Hugo wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> The only way that I can get bfe0 to enable ACCEPT_RTADV is to manually do it
>>> with ifconfig bfe0 inet6 accept_rtadv. Even if I a
Mattia Rossi wrote
in <4e9dfe11.2070...@swin.edu.au>:
mr> So the _ipv6 bit doesn't take care of passing "inet6" to ifconfig
mr> automatically?
No. You always need to add the inet6 keyword wherever needed.
mr> Does passing two options work, or do I have to pass them separately?
mr> E.g.:
mr>
Johann Hugo wrote
in <201110190845.17950.jh...@meraka.csir.co.za>:
jh> On Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:16:57 pm Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
jh> > On 18. Oct 2011, at 20:00 , Johann Hugo wrote:
jh> > > Hi
jh> > >
jh> > > The only way that I can get bfe0 to enable ACCEPT_RTADV is to manually
do
jh> >
On Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:16:57 pm Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
> On 18. Oct 2011, at 20:00 , Johann Hugo wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > The only way that I can get bfe0 to enable ACCEPT_RTADV is to manually do
> > it with ifconfig bfe0 inet6 accept_rtadv. Even if I add it to
> > ifconfig_bge0 in rc.conf it
On 19/10/2011 08:16, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
On 18. Oct 2011, at 20:00 , Johann Hugo wrote:
Hi
The only way that I can get bfe0 to enable ACCEPT_RTADV is to manually do it
with ifconfig bfe0 inet6 accept_rtadv. Even if I add it to ifconfig_bge0 in
rc.conf it does nothing.
grep bfe /etc/rc.conf
On 18. Oct 2011, at 20:00 , Johann Hugo wrote:
> Hi
>
> The only way that I can get bfe0 to enable ACCEPT_RTADV is to manually do it
> with ifconfig bfe0 inet6 accept_rtadv. Even if I add it to ifconfig_bge0 in
> rc.conf it does nothing.
>
> grep bfe /etc/rc.conf
> ifconfig_bfe0="DHCP accept
On 15/04/11 23:58, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
Mattia Rossi wrote:
I have accept_rtadv enabled if it's not a router. See my post.
I think I have a similar setup (only using sixxs-aiccu). Since
my machine is a gateway to the outside IPv6 world (via www.sixxs.net)
I am not accepting router adveriseme
>> Mattia Rossi wrote:
> I have accept_rtadv enabled if it's not a router. See my post.
I think I have a similar setup (only using sixxs-aiccu). Since
my machine is a gateway to the outside IPv6 world (via www.sixxs.net)
I am not accepting router adverisements there, but I'm running
rtadvd and s
I have accept_rtadv enabled if it's not a router. See my post.
ifconfig with tunnel up is:
ifconfig
bge0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
options=8009b
ether 00:0d:9d:51:d4:7e
inet 136.186.229.112 netmask 0xff00 broadcast xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
inet6 fe80:::::%
>> Mattia Rossi wrote:
> fxp0 and em0
Can you show us what does "ifconfig" say on
your interfaces? There are few parameters
for the ICMPv6 Neighbor Discovery Protocol
that might be needed:
"ifconfig em0 inet6 accept_rtadv"
Those are nicely documented in ifconfig(8).
This is usually handled by
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I have a similar issue. I have:
ifconfig_re0_ipv6="inet6 accept_rtadv"
And after boot, I get:
% ping6 www.google.com
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2001:470:::::: -->
2a00:1450:8005::68
^C
- --- www.l.google.com ping6 statistics ---
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:19:26PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> On 29/03/2011, at 22:04, Bernd Walter wrote:
> > My assumption is that the problem is with the other host or switch
> > network and you just never noticed this so far because this kind of
> > problem can easily hide for a very lo
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:43:57PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> It is running a fairly old FreeBSD (6.x..), maybe there are bugs there..
I don't think there are general bugs about neighbor discovery in FreeBSD
since the beginning, but NIC drivers might have multicast bugs and
although you ar
On 29/03/2011, at 23:10, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
>>> Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>>
>> On 29/03/2011, at 8:29, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>>> On 29/03/2011, at 1:37, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
1) ipv6_enable is obsolete in HEAD, see UPDATING.
>>>
>>> Ahh UPDATING, of course, thanks :)
>>>
2) Norma
>> Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> On 29/03/2011, at 8:29, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>> On 29/03/2011, at 1:37, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
>>> 1) ipv6_enable is obsolete in HEAD, see UPDATING.
>>
>> Ahh UPDATING, of course, thanks :)
>>
>>> 2) Normally hosts ignore rtadv packets if ipv6_gateway_enable is a
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 08:24:53PM +1030, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> On 29/03/2011, at 19:05, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
> >> This is repeatable after a reboot, I haven't experienced with FreeBSD 8.x.
> >>
> >
> > I would assume an NDP communication problem or some such,
> > it would be interesting
On 29/03/2011, at 22:04, Bernd Walter wrote:
>> Grr.. I had to reinstall today because I forgot to create a swap partition
>> and now I can't reproduce the problem :(
>
> NDP effectively replaces ARP for IPv6.
> Like ARP it is also learning by received packets and not only by direct
> query and
On 29/03/2011, at 19:05, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
>> This is repeatable after a reboot, I haven't experienced with FreeBSD 8.x.
>>
>
> I would assume an NDP communication problem or some such,
> it would be interesting to see this sort of traffic, also ifconfig and
> ndp -a output.
Grr.. I had t
On 29 March 2011 02:12, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>
> On 29/03/2011, at 8:29, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
>> On 29/03/2011, at 1:37, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
>>> 1) ipv6_enable is obsolete in HEAD, see UPDATING.
>>
>> Ahh UPDATING, of course, thanks :)
>>
>>> 2) Normally hosts ignore rtadv packets if ipv6_
On 29/03/2011, at 8:29, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On 29/03/2011, at 1:37, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
>> 1) ipv6_enable is obsolete in HEAD, see UPDATING.
>
> Ahh UPDATING, of course, thanks :)
>
>> 2) Normally hosts ignore rtadv packets if ipv6_gateway_enable is also
>> set (as per rfc4861).
>> All
On 29/03/2011, at 1:37, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
> 1) ipv6_enable is obsolete in HEAD, see UPDATING.
Ahh UPDATING, of course, thanks :)
> 2) Normally hosts ignore rtadv packets if ipv6_gateway_enable is also
> set (as per rfc4861).
> All you need is something like ifconfig_em0_ipv6="inet6 accept_
On 28 March 2011 16:55, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to get a -CURRENT box to get an IPv6 address via RTADV, however I
> am not having any luck.
>
> I have tried the following in rc.conf :-
> ipv6_enable="YES"
> ipv6_gateway_enable="YES"
>
> ifconfig_em0_ipv6="RTADV"
>
> (the last o
Looked to me like Michael already has the SCTP stuff in the inet6 code.
Not sure if it needs further enabling or what??
I'm not positive about what cards are in the netperf cluster. Any card
that em, igb, and ixgbe supports can do the TCP/UDP checksum
offloads whether in IPv4 or 6 if handed to it.
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010, Jack Vogel wrote:
Hi,
I had occasion to think about this, and I was wondering if someone is
working to add
either or both of these features, Intel's hardware supports it, it does not
seem that
hard to add, or am I missing something?
Strange that I had been thinking of tha
Hiroki,
Throughout your post you are *theorizing* about what you *think* will
happen. You obviously missed the parts of my post(s) where I said I
actually tested it.
BEFORE you make any changes to the existing code you need to do some
actual testing, publish your methods and results, make a persu
Doug Barton wrote
in <4bcb6a14.5040...@freebsd.org>:
do> > # ifconfig gif0 create
do> > # ifconfig gif0 up
do>
do> Your statement is literally true, in this case the network.subr stuff
do> "has no control" because it isn't run. That was the same for the old
do> code as it is for the new code.
Now we're getting somewhere. :)
On 04/18/10 12:04, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote
> in <4bca2b55.9000...@freebsd.org>:
>
> do> > I strongly disagree with this because some IPv6
> do> > applications depend on link-local address automatically added on
> do> > cloned interfaces
> do>
>
Doug Barton wrote
in <4bca2b55.9000...@freebsd.org>:
do> > I strongly disagree with this because some IPv6
do> > applications depend on link-local address automatically added on
do> > cloned interfaces
do>
do> Can you please give a configuration example that would create the
do> scenario you
[ moved to net@; current@ bcc'ed ]
Hi Craig,
I think I saw the same behaviour while developing a path-mtu discovery
tool. As I'm quite busy right now I didn't really dig into it, but I will
at some point.
I took the liberty to reply to freebsd-net@, because this is not only a
-CURRENT problem.
> <
>said:
>
> > echo 24.113.25.85 | sed -e s/"\."/" "/g | awk '{$5 = $1*256 + $2; $6 = $3*256 +
>$4; printf "2002:%x:%x:\n", $5, $6}'
>
> Or, without only one extra process:
>
> myaddr=24.113.25.85
> OIFS="$IFS"
> IFS=".$IFS"
> set $myaddr
> IFS="$OIFS"
> printf "2002:%x:%x:\n" $(($1 * 256
> > echo 24.113.25.85 | sed -e s/"\."/" "/g | awk '{$5 = $1*256 + $2; $6 = $3*256 +
>$4; printf "2002:%x:%x:\n", $5, $6}'
>
> Or, without only one extra process:
>
> myaddr=24.113.25.85
> OIFS="$IFS"
> IFS=".$IFS"
> set $myaddr
> IFS="$OIFS"
> printf "2002:%x:%x:\n" $(($1 * 256 + $2)) $(($3 *
< said:
> echo 24.113.25.85 | sed -e s/"\."/" "/g | awk '{$5 = $1*256 + $2; $6 = $3*256 +
>$4; printf "2002:%x:%x:\n", $5, $6}'
Or, without only one extra process:
myaddr=24.113.25.85
OIFS="$IFS"
IFS=".$IFS"
set $myaddr
IFS="$OIFS"
printf "2002:%x:%x:\n" $(($1 * 256 + $2)) $(($3 * 256 + $4))
> > echo 24.113.25.85 | sed -e s/"\."/" "/g | awk '{$5 = $1*256 + $2; $6 = $3*256 +
>$4; printf "2002:%x:%x:\n", $5, $6}'
> >
> >Then it will print out first 6byte for your 6to4 prefix.
>
> just checking. from code inspection on cvsweb,
> - rc.network6 is called before performing n
>And if you want to check 6to4 prefix for some IPv4 addr
>without doing 6to4 interface configuration, please try
>following command.
>
> echo 24.113.25.85 | sed -e s/"\."/" "/g | awk '{$5 = $1*256 + $2; $6 = $3*256 + $4;
>printf "2002:%x:%x:\n", $5, $6}'
>
>Then it will print out first 6byte for
> > (Now I am comfirming a new rc.conf entry which automate above
> > IPv6 prefix calucuration, and etc, for 6to4 interface configuration.)
As I also said in my previous mail with this subject, this is
committed.
If anyone intersted, please try it.
If you have IPv4 1.2.3.4 for your 6to4 interfac
> OK,
> What is the correct one??
>
> How do I calulate the IP from IPv6, what is the formula?
> oh The IPv4 I want to use is 24.113.25.85 and 24.113.130.83
Are you tring to do multihoming? Then things might be more
complicated.
Let's forget the 2nd IPv4 addr for simplicity, now.
If your addr
oh The IPv4 I want to use is 24.113.25.85 and 24.113.130.83
Thanks..
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Yoshinobu Inoue wrote:
> >
> > > Shouldn't this be 2002:e071:8253: instead?
> >
> > Ah, if real IPv4 addr is 240:113:130:083, then I think it will be,
> >
> > 2002:f071:8253:
OK,
What is the correct one??
How do I calulate the IP from IPv6, what is the formula?
Shaun
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Yoshinobu Inoue wrote:
> >
> > > Shouldn't this be 2002:e071:8253: instead?
> >
> > Ah, if real IPv4 addr is 240:113:130:083, then I think it will be,
>
Yoshinobu Inoue wrote:
>
> > Shouldn't this be 2002:e071:8253: instead?
>
> Ah, if real IPv4 addr is 240:113:130:083, then I think it will be,
>
> 2002:f071:8253:
Err, f0, of course... :-)
> (Now I am comfirming a new rc.conf entry which automate above
> IPv6 prefix calucuration, and etc, f
> > > So my IPv4 address is 24.113.130.83 that in IPv6 would be
> > > 2002:240:113:130:083 ??
> >
> > No, no, because IPv6 address is printed in hex format each
> > 2bytes separated by collon, so the 1st 6bytes will be,
> >
> > 2002:1871:8253:
>
> Shouldn't this be 2002:e071:8253: instead?
A
Yoshinobu Inoue wrote:
>
> > So my IPv4 address is 24.113.130.83 that in IPv6 would be
> > 2002:240:113:130:083 ??
>
> No, no, because IPv6 address is printed in hex format each
> 2bytes separated by collon, so the 1st 6bytes will be,
>
> 2002:1871:8253:
Shouldn't this be 2002:e071:8253: ins
Hi,
> So my IPv4 address is 24.113.130.83 that in IPv6 would be
> 2002:240:113:130:083 ??
No, no, because IPv6 address is printed in hex format each
2bytes separated by collon, so the 1st 6bytes will be,
2002:1871:8253:
and if printed in full 16bytes,
2002:1871:8253:-:::00
>> For NetBSD-current, I'll bring in cleaner 6to4 code (since netbsd is
>> not that close to the deadline).
>> please wait for a while...
>This is what I expected. I was just messing around some and was pleased
>that it didn't panic my machine.
Thanks. BTW, plea
So my IPv4 address is 24.113.130.83 that in IPv6 would be
2002:240:113:130:083 ??
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
> I believe I'm looking for a public IPv6 address to use for testing
> purposes. So where/what addresses can I use is my question.
> then how I intergrate that into my setup.
>
> Hope that makes the question more clearer.
> Thanks
OK, then I think you should try 6to4 addr.
The format is like b
1 - 100 of 194 matches
Mail list logo
