On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, fredrik danerklint wrote:
Hi,
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.
It's new-arp fallout and related to the carp problems with IPv6.
/bz
--
Bjoern A. Zeeb You have to have visions!
Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family._______________________________________________
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"
