On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 23:21:33 +0100,
Dimitry Andric [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Bruce A. Mah wrote:
I've convinced myself that this problem needs to be tested in isolation
(i.e. you have complete control over both ends of the tunnel) because
incoming packets over the tunnel cause the host route
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
Confirmed. I've updated the machine on which I originally had this
problem to -STABLE as of today, and the problem has disappeared.
I thought it was also planned to be incorporated to RELENG_6_2, right?
I'm not sure if non-security related fixes are considered
If memory serves me right, Dimitry Andric wrote:
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
Confirmed. I've updated the machine on which I originally had this
problem to -STABLE as of today, and the problem has disappeared.
I thought it was also planned to be incorporated to RELENG_6_2, right?
I'm not
Bruce A. Mah wrote:
I've convinced myself that this problem needs to be tested in isolation
(i.e. you have complete control over both ends of the tunnel) because
incoming packets over the tunnel cause the host route to get added
automatically if it wasn't there already.
After reading the
If memory serves me right, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Bruce A. Mah wrote:
I mean that it may be that between -RELEASE and -STABLE, other things
have changed, e.g. network rc scripts, /sbin/route itself, etc, which
may also influence this behaviour. I'm sure more than only nd6.c
changed. :)
The
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 09:57:06PM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Yes. The specific line in my rc.conf is:
ipv6_ifconfig_gif0=2001:7b8:2ff:146::2 2001:7b8:2ff:146::1 prefixlen 128
With that setup you should be able to just do:
ipv6_defaultrouter=2001:7b8:2ff:146::1
If memory serves me right, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Bruce A. Mah wrote:
and later I found out it was caused by commit 1.48.2.16:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2006-December/031853.html
This isn't consistent with what I'm finding. For one thing, rev.
1.48.2.16 of nd6.c isn't
Bruce A. Mah wrote:
Just to confirm, you're dealing with a gif(4) interface with an
explicitly-configured destination address and a 128-bit prefixlen, yes?
Yes. The specific line in my rc.conf is:
ipv6_ifconfig_gif0=2001:7b8:2ff:146::2 2001:7b8:2ff:146::1 prefixlen 128
Maybe
there is
Bruce A. Mah wrote:
and later I found out it was caused by commit 1.48.2.16:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2006-December/031853.html
This isn't consistent with what I'm finding. For one thing, rev.
1.48.2.16 of nd6.c isn't in 6.2-RELEASE but I saw the problem there
Bruce A. Mah wrote:
I remember Dimitry Andric reported the same problem on -stable on 30
Dec, and after he reverted rev.1.48.2.16 it worked fine again. Do
you have the symptom even on 6.2-RELEASE? Since RELENG_6_2_0_RELEASE
did not have the change, I thought there was no problem.
...
On
If memory serves me right, Dimitry Andric wrote:
Bruce A. Mah wrote:
I remember Dimitry Andric reported the same problem on -stable on 30
Dec, and after he reverted rev.1.48.2.16 it worked fine again. Do
you have the symptom even on 6.2-RELEASE? Since RELENG_6_2_0_RELEASE
did not have
I'm observing a problem with IPv6 over gif(4) tunnels on 6.2-RELEASE
and recent 6-STABLE, namely that I can't seem to be able to pass
traffic over them.
Essentially, when I configure a gif interface like this:
# ifconfig gif0 inet6 :::::1 :::::2 prefixlen
128
If memory serves me right, Hiroki Sato wrote:
Bruce A. Mah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
bm I'm observing a problem with IPv6 over gif(4) tunnels on 6.2-RELEASE
bm and recent 6-STABLE, namely that I can't seem to be able to pass
bm traffic over them.
[snip]
bm I know
Bruce A. Mah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
bm I'm observing a problem with IPv6 over gif(4) tunnels on 6.2-RELEASE
bm and recent 6-STABLE, namely that I can't seem to be able to pass
bm traffic over them.
bm
bm Essentially, when I configure a gif interface like this:
bm
bm #
14 matches
Mail list logo
