söndagen den 6 mars 2011 21.29.30 skrev Bjoern A. Zeeb: > 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.
ok. where can I read about this problem with carp (since that is what I also gonna to use later on with ip6..) Is there any kind of information about the status of ip6 in FreeBSD. I mean really a list of what works and what not works? -- //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"