Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 22:02:20 +0000 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 Message-ID: <bug-233283-7501-s4qluuJtYG@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-233283-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-233283-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D233283 --- Comment #13 from Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> --- (In reply to Andrey V. Elsukov from comment #7) Isn't this patch a bit of a kludge? The existing check for the entry in ou= r L2 entry cache should be sufficient =E2=80=94 why don't we populate LLE cache = with on-link off-prefix routers? It's not clear to me the exact ordering, but it seems somehow we get a rout= er advertisement and insert it into our routing table without populating the L= LE of the sender in the LLE cache. I think we must be violating the following somehow (or ignoring SHOULD): After extracting information from the fixed part of the Router Advertisement message, the advertisement is scanned for valid options. If the advertisement contains a Source Link-Layer Address option, the link-layer address SHOULD be recorded in the Neighbor Cache entry for the router (creating an entry if necessary) and the IsRouter flag in the Neighbor Cache entry MUST be set to TRUE. If no Source Link-Layer Address is included, but a corresponding Neighbor Cache entry exists, its IsRouter flag MUST be set to TRUE. Maybe it's bogus that nd6_onlink_ns_rfc4861 defaults to off? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-233283-7501-s4qluuJtYG>