Got it. That makes sense :) Ed
On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 9:58 AM Neale Ranns <ne...@graphiant.com> wrote: > Hi Ed, > > > > When creating an adjacency for the first time we send out a probe packet > (ARP/ND) to see if the peer will resolve it. > > > > /neale > > > > *From: *Ed Warnicke <hagb...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Friday, 20 August 2021 at 16:54 > *To: *Neale Ranns <ne...@graphiant.com> > *Cc: *zsta...@gmail.com <zsta...@gmail.com>, Artem Glazychev < > artem.glazyc...@xored.com>, vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> > *Subject: *Re: [vpp-dev] Adding new route via ipv6 link-local > > Neale, > > > > Question... looking at the trace it looks like we are having an issue with > fib_sas6_get ... could you help me understand why we are calling > fib_sas6_get in this situation? > > > > Ed > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 9:49 AM Neale Ranns <ne...@graphiant.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Ed, > > > > It does. But in this case the command is adding a route through an > interface, which is not the same as configuring a prefix on an interface > (nor ip6 enabling it). > > > > /neale > > > > *From: *Ed Warnicke <hagb...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Friday, 20 August 2021 at 16:40 > *To: *Neale Ranns <ne...@graphiant.com> > *Cc: *zsta...@gmail.com <zsta...@gmail.com>, Artem Glazychev < > artem.glazyc...@xored.com>, vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> > *Subject: *Re: [vpp-dev] Adding new route via ipv6 link-local > > Neale, > > > > I'm a bit confused... I had previously thought that *adding* an IPv6 > address to a link *did* IPv6 enable it... > > > > Ed > > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 9:20 AM Neale Ranns <ne...@graphiant.com> wrote: > > Hi Artem, Stanislav, > > > > I agree graceful handling is needed, return false if there is no link > local. > > > > If you enabled ip6 on the link first, this wouldn’t be a problem. The link > will need to be ip6 enabled if you want something to reply. > > > > /neale > > > > > > *From: *vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> on behalf of Stanislav > Zaikin via lists.fd.io <zstaseg=gmail....@lists.fd.io> > *Date: *Friday, 20 August 2021 at 16:10 > *To: *Artem Glazychev <artem.glazyc...@xored.com> > *Cc: *vpp-dev <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> > *Subject: *Re: [vpp-dev] Adding new route via ipv6 link-local > > Hello Artem, > > > > Looks like we need (at least) to add a check for nullptr. > > > > DBGvpp# create tap > tap0 > DBGvpp# set interface state tap0 up > DBGvpp# ip route add fa::1/120 via fe80::1 tap0 > > Thread 1 "vpp_main" received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. > 0x00007ffff774ba90 in ip6_address_copy (dst=0x7fffaf487aa0, src=0x0) at > /home/zstas/vpp/src/vnet/ip/ip6_packet.h:129 > 129 dst->as_u64[0] = src->as_u64[0]; > (gdb) bt > #0 0x00007ffff774ba90 in ip6_address_copy (dst=0x7fffaf487aa0, src=0x0) > at /home/zstas/vpp/src/vnet/ip/ip6_packet.h:129 > #1 0x00007ffff774b892 in fib_sas6_get (sw_if_index=1, dst=0x7fffb91b4e50, > src=0x7fffaf487aa0) at /home/zstas/vpp/src/vnet/fib/fib_sas.c:105 > > > > On Fri, 20 Aug 2021 at 15:20, Artem Glazychev <artem.glazyc...@xored.com> > wrote: > > Hello, > > Found a crash: if we add the route via fe80:: * after* the interface > upping - vpp crashes. > > For example: > > DBGvpp# create tap > > tap0 > > DBGvpp# set int state tap0 up > > DBGvpp# ip route add fa::1/120 via fe80::1 tap0 > > make: *** [Makefile:537: run] Aborted > > > > If we swap *set ... up* and *ip route ...* - no crashes. > > Could you please explain me if such a situation is possible at all? > In any case, I believe that vpp should not crash. > > Thanks. > > > > > > -- > > Best regards > Stanislav Zaikin > > > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#20003): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/20003 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/85020362/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
