NetBSD, ipv6, and linode
While I've got some free time over the holidays, I thought I'd go ahead and finally try to get my NetBSD/Linode going with its assigned IPv6. Linode tells me that my IPv6 IP is 2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:feae:c95d/64 and my default gateway should be fe80::1. I've tried bringing this up with static entries in /etc/ifconfig.wm0 by appending the line: inet6 2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:feae:c95d prefixlen 64 alias And by adding 'defaultroute6=fe80::1' to /etc/rc.conf. No errors, but I can't seem to ping6 or traceroute6 anywhere. I've tried configuring it via SLAAC as per the NetBSD ipv6 page by setting the appropriate option in /etc/rc.conf: ip6mode=autohost and adding '!rtsol wm0' to /etc/ifconfig.wm0 Again, I get an IP, an ipv6 default route (which I can ping6), but can't ping6 something like say, google.com, or netbsd.org: $ ping6 netbsd.org PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2600:3c00::f03c:91ff:feae:c95d --> 2001:470:a085:999::80 ^C --- netbsd.org ping6 statistics --- 2 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss I know next to nothing about ipv6 other than what I've read in the FAQs, so, any pointers to additional debugging would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Michael Parson Pflugerville, TX KF5LGQ
npf map syntax
Just looking at npf as a workaround for kern/50198 (I think the patch in there is correct, and the last comments amount to trying with and without IPN_IN), and am stumped at the first hurdle: ipf: rdr xennet0 0.0.0.0/0 port 80 -> 127.0.0.1 port 1234 tcp What is the equivalent in npf? I tried $any = 0.0.0.0/0 map $ext_if dynamic 127.0.0.1 port 1234 <- $any port 80 #map $ext_if dynamic 127.0.0.1 port 1234 <- $ext_if port 80 #map $ext_if dynamic $any port 80 <- 127.0.0.1 port 1234 and none seem to work. (What is net-seg defined as?) (for the second hurdle: I have the equivalent code running calling npf_nat_lookup() which seems to work, but I suspect it is because I am running on amd64: is npf_addr_t in host or net order? simply same as sockaddr_in?) Cheers, Patrick
The $0.5M donation to FreeBSD Foundation
https://www.freebsdfoundation.org/blog/freebsd-foundation-announces-new-uranium-level-donation/ Folks, we need to make friends with this Mr. Anonymous, guy. He's loaded and generous. I won't forget that the FreeBSD guys are our allies and friends, too. Their rising tide can also help to lift our boat. Some other food for thought just before the New Year: "Sometimes even to live is an act of courage." -Seneca "I am a slow walker, but I never walk back." -Abraham Lincoln "Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree." -Martin Luther Chins up folks, we hang tough and work in the wilderness off less than @ 1/100th of the resources. Just blood, sweat, and MajorDomo mailing lists, baby. Hang tough, and here's a big "thanks" from a longtime NetBSD user to the The NetBSD Foundation, the NetBSD coders, the pkgsrc guys, and anyone else who helps! -Swift
Re: Xorg vs Wayland (and MIR?) - future for NetBSD X ?
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 08:49:12PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote: > You can still set INSECURE if you want, on your custom kernel. Depends on how exactly the permissions on the X server are changed. The main point, however, is that this change needs quite a bit of testing accross a variety of hardware. And it needs moving back PCI access to go via /dev/ttyE* instead of /dev/pci. Martin
