Well, it seems that restarting the network service solved the problem. I haven't done that in ages, so maybe some updates went wrong. You'll never know!
Thanks for your help guys, problem 'solved' for my hoster. xD --- *B. R.* On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:50 PM, B.R. <[email protected]> wrote: > Other answer > --- > *B. R.* > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:24 PM > Subject: Re: IPv6 FIB frequent add/remove messages (dual-stack) > To: Pascal Hambourg <[email protected]> > > > I omitted a part of my answer to Pascal. > > The /96 mask is part of the configuration requirements provided by my > hoster. I don't have access to the reason of that particular subnet mask. I > just follow the rules ^^ > I don't play with the rules, my hoster immediately threatened me to sever > the connection of my server in the first message reporting a problem with > my IPv6 interface... > > I had to show them my configuratio nwas OK to get the log details... And > now I just asked them to provide me with the details about the meaning of > those add/remove everyone here wanna know. > Slow and painful process... > --- > *B. R. > * > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:13 PM, B. R. wrote: > >> Thanks Philipp, Pascal for your answers. >> >> I didn't even make the effort to think over the /128. And also about the >> network mask... >> I feel stupid about that now :oP >> >> No, I don't have much more details from my hoster. My contact is >> relaying information from their "network team", he doesn't seem to >> understand much more than me what he is talking about... >> I don't know what to seek for with tcpdump, honestly. >> >> The router I was talking about seems to be the device their log trace >> wastaken from. >> I do not handle routing of anything on the network, I just own a server >> over there. >> >> I'll try to get information from their side. >> --- >> *B. R.* >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Pascal Hambourg >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> B.R. a écrit : >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > I own a hosted dedicated server and my hosting provider just reported >>> me my >>> > server is continuously removeing/adding entries to the FIB table of >>> their >>> > router. >>> >>> Did the provider bother to explain what they meant precisely by >>> removing/adding entries to the FIB table of their router" ? >>> >>> > Here is the reported spam: >>> > Dec 12 19:43:02.567: [base] 2A00:C70:1:213:246:aaa:bbb:0/128'0A FIB >>> remove >>> [...] >>> > Here is my interface configuration: >>> [...] >>> > iface eth0 inet6 static >>> > address 2a00:c70:1:213:246:aaa:bbb:0 >>> > netmask 96 >>> > gateway 2a00:c70:1:213:246:aaa::1 >>> > >>> > The IPv6 configuration has been checked against the hoster guidelines >>> and >>> > is correct. >>> >>> Really ? With a /96 prefix length ? Whereas /64 is strongly recommended >>> unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise. >>> >>> Note that the prefix address is usually reserved as the anycast address >>> for that prefix. Use any other address in the prefix for anycas host >>> addresses. >>> >>> > One of the strange things is that the reported IP address mask is not >>> the >>> > one I set up. >>> >>> /128 just means it is an individual address. Prefixes and netmasks are a >>> local connfiguration thing, they do not travel in packets across >>> networks, except in routing or configuration protocols. Does your server >>> run this kind of service ? >>> >>> > I also have some stuff running on top of my router, one the notable >>> things >>> > is a DNS. >>> >>> What router ? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] >>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact >>> [email protected] >>> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected] >>> >>> >> > >
