From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Tue Nov 20 21:26:57 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2F46113E7D2 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:26:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 628CC84A47 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:26:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 1FCA9113E7D1; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:26:56 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE65E113E7CD for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:26:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8856A84A3E for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:26:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B0FB16623 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:26:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id wAKLQsdk074502 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:26:54 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id wAKLQsE8074492 for net@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:26:54 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 233283] IPv6 routing problem when using FreeBSD as a VPS at a cloud provider Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:26:52 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: jinmei@wide.ad.jp X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: net@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 628CC84A47 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.39 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.28)[-0.279,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:10310, ipnet:2001:1900:2254::/48, country:US]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.80)[0.804,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.14)[-0.138,0] X-Rspamd-Server: mx1.freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 21:26:57 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D233283 jinmei@wide.ad.jp changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jinmei@wide.ad.jp --- Comment #12 from jinmei@wide.ad.jp --- I don't think this text is relevant to the topic: --snip-- If the source address of the packet prompting the solicitation is the same as one of the addresses assigned to the outgoing interface, that address SHOULD be placed in the IP Source Address of the outgoing solicitation. Otherwise, any one of the addresses assigned to the interface should be used. --snip-- The "otherwise" case is basically about a forwarding node (router), in which case the source address of the packet being forwarded is normally different from any of the outgoing interface of the forwarding node. Obviously this = case should be an exception to the SHOULD. As far as I know FreeBSD is complian= t to this spec. Besides, I don't see any relevance of the source address selection of outgo= ing NS to this issue. The problem description is a bit unclear, but I don't see anything in the FreeBSD's implementation that may be related to this trouble and is not RFC-compliant. If I were to guess, the expected operation here is to allow= the user to manually specify an on-link prefix (in this case, that would be /128). As far as I know there's no RFC that require= s a host to implement such a manual configuration. But supporting it may not b= e a bad idea. And, if we add support for it, I'd do so by extending 'ndp' so t= hat it allows the user to manually create an entry that would be listed by 'ndp -p', rather than allowing route(8) to tweak the routing table that causes t= he same effect (which b72db1d3321d7a80f4da3f727765bcc200f30278 of the dragonfly patch seems to do). --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=