Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:27:40 -0500 From: Tom Pusateri <pusateri@bangj.com> To: "Li, Qing" <qing.li@bluecoat.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: patch: bad ipv6 neighbor solicitation Message-ID: <5ED6B687-4191-4B11-A2F7-B01F67FB9D16@bangj.com> In-Reply-To: <B583FBF374231F4A89607B4D08578A430619B543@bcs-mail03.internal.cacheflow.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0912131456440.83238@Elmer.dco.penx.com><9223.83.206.131.26.1260781902.squirrel@webmail.esigetel.fr><alpine.BSF.2.00.0912141451480.16515@Elmer.dco.penx.com> <B583FBF374231F4A89607B4D08578A4304673758@bcs-mail03.internal.cacheflow.com> <B583FBF374231F4A89607B4D08578A430619B543@bcs-mail03.internal.cacheflow.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I didn't think this routing patch was related to the "bad neighbor = solicitation messages" as suggested in the subject field but I tried it = anyway. It does not fix my IPv6 problem. I still get "bad neighbor = solicitation messages" and freebsd 8 doesn't respond to 4/5 IPv6 pings. Thanks, Tom On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:53 PM, Li, Qing wrote: > Please find the more proper fix at >=20 > http://people.freebsd.org/~qingli/nd6-patch.diff >=20 > I realized I was slightly off in my previous email after > I spent a bit more time looking through the problem.=20 > Both prefixes are present but one was marked off-link due > to the fact only a single prefix route was installed in > the routing table (non RADIX_MPATH system). >=20 > I evaluated various options to fixing this issue, however,=20 > due to the association between NDPRF_ONLINK and the route > installation, I decided to go with what I have here for > the time being. >=20 > I have verified the fix in my setup. Please apply the > patch and report back. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > -- Qing >=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- >> net@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Li, Qing >> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 3:00 PM >> To: Dennis Glatting; JASSAL Aman >> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org >> Subject: RE: Understanding multiple IPv6 interfaces under 8.0 (fwd) >>=20 >>=20 >> You don't need to perform all that route-foo. I believe the root = cause >> of >> this issue may be due to a bit of regression in the IPv6 prefix >> management >> code, and I am in the process of putting together a permanent fix. >>=20 >> The issue as it stands today, is due to how the prefix was inserted = in >> the first place. Since bce0 was configured first, the interface >> associated >> with the prefix is bce0. Later the reference count on the prefix is >> simply incremented when bce1 configures another IPv6 address of the >> same prefix. >>=20 >> When ND6 NS arrives for bce1, due to the interface mismatch of the >> prefix >> interface against the input interface, the NS packet was considered >> invalid and thus dropped. >>=20 >> Again, in case you didn't see my earlier reply, try the temporary = hack >> at >> http://people.freebsd.org/~qingli/nd6-ns.diff >>=20 >> until I commit a permanent patch. The problem was easily reproducible >> and >> I have verified with limited unit testing the patch works. >>=20 >> -- Qing >>=20 >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org on behalf of Dennis Glatting >> Sent: Mon 12/14/2009 2:03 PM >> To: JASSAL Aman >> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: Understanding multiple IPv6 interfaces under 8.0 (fwd) >>=20 >>=20 >> Thanks. Responses in-line. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, JASSAL Aman wrote: >>=20 >>> Hello Mr.Glatting, >>>=20 >>> Not that I'm an IPv6 genius, but at first sight your problem seems > to >> be a >>> route-related. I've put comments in-line. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Le Dim 13 d?cembre 2009 22:58, Dennis Glatting a ?crit : >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Elmer# netstat -rn >>>> Routing tables >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Internet6: >>>> Destination Gateway >> Flags >>>> Netif Expire >>>> ::/96 ::1 > UGRS >>>> lo0 =3D> default fd7c:3f2b:e791:1::1 >>>> UGS bce0 >>>> ::1 ::1 UH >>>> lo0 ::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 ::1 >> UGRS >>>> lo0 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1::/64 link#1 >> U >>>> bce0 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1::ac13:a0a link#1 >> UHS >>>> lo0 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a link#2 >> UHS >>>> lo0 fe80::/10 ::1 >> UGRS >>>> lo0 fe80::%bce0/64 link#1 >> U >>>> bce0 fe80::213:72ff:fe60:ac52%bce0 link#1 >> UHS >>>> lo0 fe80::%bce1/64 link#2 >> U >>>> bce1 fe80::213:72ff:fe60:ac50%bce1 link#2 >> UHS >>>> lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 link#3 >> U >>>> lo0 fe80::1%lo0 link#3 >> UHS >>>> lo0 ff01:1::/32 fe80::213:72ff:fe60:ac52%bce0 >> U >>>> bce0 ff01:2::/32 > fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a >> U >>>> bce1 ff01:3::/32 ::1 >> U >>>> lo0 ff02::/16 ::1 >> UGRS >>>> lo0 ff02::%bce0/32 fe80::213:72ff:fe60:ac52%bce0 >> U >>>> bce0 ff02::%bce1/32 > fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a >> U >>>> bce1 ff02::%lo0/32 ::1 >> U >>>> lo0 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Hmm, the entry for fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a looks suspect. I > was >>> expecting bce1 rather than lo0, I suppose you were as well :) If I'm >> not >>> mistaken, the packets emanating from bce1 go to the loopback >> interface, >>> thus not really going out. You can try specifying the route manually >>> with "route add *your parameters*" or even set it in /etc/rc.conf so >>> that it's loaded at boot-time. There's no reason why among 2 > physical >>> interfaces sharing the same fabric, one can ship packets out and the >>> other can't. >>>=20 >>=20 >> I was wondering about the route however I haven't figured out the > trick >> to >> get what I want. For example: >>=20 >> Elmer# route delete -inet6 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a >> delete host fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a >>=20 >> Elmer# route add >> -inet6 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a/64 -iface bce1 >> route: writing to routing socket: File exists >> add net fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a/64: gateway bce1: route already >> in table >>=20 >> I did delete the lo0 route before I exected the above command. Also, = I >> haven't been able to specify a higher metric (e.g., -metric 2). That > is >> rejected too. However, I can say: >>=20 >> Elmer# route delete -inet6 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a >> delete host fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a >>=20 >> Elmer# route add -inet6 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a -iface bce1 >> add host fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a: gateway bce1 >>=20 >> Elmer# netstat -rn >> (snip) >> fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a 00:13:72:60:ac:50 UHS >> bce1 >>=20 >> I don't think that is what I want. WHat I think I just said is "host > X" >> is >> out that door, rather than route net. If, however, I say Docs is out >> that >> door, I get: >>=20 >> Elmer# route add -inet6 docs.dco.penx.com -iface bce1 >> add host docs.dco.penx.com: gateway bce1 >>=20 >> Elmer# ping6 >> docs.penx.com >> PING6(56=3D40+8+8 bytes) fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a --> >> fd7c:3f2b:e791:1::ac13:a15 >> ping6: sendmsg: Operation not permitted >> ping6: wrote docs.dco.penx.com 16 chars, ret=3D-1 >>=20 >>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Elmer's rc.config: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> ipv6_enable=3D"YES" ipv6_network_interfaces=3D"bce0 bce1" >>>> ipv6_ifconfig_bce0=3D"FD7C:3F2B:E791:0001::0:172.19.10.10 prefixlen >> 64" >>>> ipv6_ifconfig_bce1=3D"FD7C:3F2B:E791:0001::1:172.19.10.10 prefixlen > 64 >> mtu >>>> 8192" >>>> ipv6_defaultrouter=3D"FD7C:3F2B:E791:0001::1" >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Erm... You're using IPv4 addresses encapsulated in IPv6 ? I've never >> used >>> this myself so I can't really comment, and I can't say if there >> aren't any >>> sort of "interferences" with what you're trying to do. >>>=20 >>=20 >> I hope what I am specifying is to use the 32 bit IPv4 address as the >> last >> 32 bits of the IPv6 address, at least that is how it works out >> numerically. My numbering scheme for fixed assets is the last 32 bits >> of >> the 128 bit IPv6 address is the same as its IPv4 address. >>=20 >>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> The router (cisco): >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> interface GigabitEthernet0/0 ipv6 address FD7C:3F2B:E791:1::1/64 >> ipv6 >>>> enable ipv6 nd prefix FD7C:3F2B:E791:1::/64 (etc) >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> Just a side-note, I'm not sure if it will be really useful to you, >> but you >>> could give it a try if you want to. Have you tried using your Cisco >> router >>> as a Router Advertisement Daemon ? That way, addresses would be > built >>> automatically and you could see how both interfaces react to such >>> advertisements. >>>=20 >>> I hope this helps. >>>=20 >>> ------------ >>> Aman Jassal >>>=20 >>> Wisdom comes from experience. >>> Experience comes from a lack of wisdom. >>>=20 >>>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5ED6B687-4191-4B11-A2F7-B01F67FB9D16>