lördagen den 5 mars 2011 21.10.19 skrev Sergey Kandaurov: > On 5 March 2011 21:43, fredrik danerklint <fre...@fredan.se> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I would like to know what is the differents between ip4 and ip6 for this > > command. > > > > First: > > > > #ifconfig lo1 > > lo1: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 16384 > > options=3<RXCSUM,TXCSUM> > > inet xx.xx.xx.2 netmask 0xffffffff > > inet6 2a03:xxxx:xxxx::xxxx:xx02 prefixlen 128 > > nd6 options=3<PERFORMNUD,ACCEPT_RTADV> > > > > $ ping xx.xx.xx.2 > > PING xx.xx.xx.2 (xx.xx.xx.2): 56 data bytes > > 64 bytes from xx.xx.xx.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.012 ms > > 64 bytes from xx.xx.xx.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.010 ms > > ^C > > > > and > > > > $ ping6 2a03:xxxx:xxxx::xxxx:xx02 > > PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2a03:xxxx:xxxx::xxxx:xx02 --> > > 2a03:xxxx:xxxx::xxxx:xx02 16 bytes from 2a03:xxxx:xxxx::xxxx:xx02, > > icmp_seq=0 hlim=64 time=0.053 ms 16 bytes from > > 2a03:xxxx:xxxx::xxxx:xx02, icmp_seq=1 hlim=64 time=0.032 ms ^C > > > > Now we run this command: > > > > # ifconfig lo1 down > > > > and trying to ping again: > > > > $ ping xx.xx.xx.2 > > PING xx.xx.xx.2 (xx.xx.xx.2): 56 data bytes > > ping: sendto: No route to host > > ping: sendto: No route to host > > ping: sendto: No route to host > > ^C > > --- xx.xx.xx.2 ping statistics --- > > 3 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss > > > > works as expected (and this is what I want) but this command, however: > > > > $ ping6 2a03:xxxx:xxxx::xxxx:xx02 > > PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2a03:xxxx:xxxx::xxxx:xx02 --> > > 2a03:xxxx:xxxx::xxxx:xx02 16 bytes from 2a03:xxxx:xxxx::xxxx:xx02, > > icmp_seq=0 hlim=64 time=0.048 ms 16 bytes from > > 2a03:xxxx:xxxx::xxxx:xx02, icmp_seq=1 hlim=64 time=0.033 ms 16 bytes > > from 2a03:xxxx:xxxx::xxxx:xx02, icmp_seq=2 hlim=64 time=0.032 ms ^C > > --- 2a03:xxxx:xxxx::xxxx:xx02 ping6 statistics --- > > 3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0.0% packet loss > > round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 0.032/0.038/0.048/0.007 ms > > > > My question is why is it not the same behavior of ip6 as of ip4? > > That's how forwarding works/differs for ipv4 and ipv6. > You should be able to ping xx.xx.xx.2 again after adding static route. > Something like route add xx.xx.xx.2 -iface -lo1.
> > I can only say for the moment that from my observation ipv4 "routes to > itself" exist as far as interface is up, and ipv6 routes don't depend on > if iface is up. You can check this with netstat -r for both addresses with > iface up and down. Hmm... take a look at this: Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire xx.xx.xx.2 link#8 UH 0 0 lo1 Internet6: Destination Gateway Flags Netif Expire 2a03:xxxx:xxxx::xxxx:xx02 link#8 UHS lo0 See the differents? For ip4 it uses the correct interface, lo1, but on ip6 it uses the lo0 interface and sure enough it is not down at all. What have I missconfigured in rc.conf: cloned_interfaces="vlanxx lo1" ifconfig_lo1="inet xx.xx.xx.2/32 " ipv6_ifconfig_lo1="2a03:xxxx:xxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xx02/128" -- //fredan _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
