Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:50:50 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: IPv6 routing on 7.1R Message-ID: <20090117124940.D45399@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> In-Reply-To: <20090112.042014.205677175.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <20090112.042014.205677175.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Hiroki Sato wrote: Hi, > I noticed an odd behavior regarding IPv6 after upgrading my 7.0R box > to 7.1R. The situation and symptom are the following: > > 1. The box has two NICs. One has an address 2001:0db8:1::1/64 (NIC > A), and another has 2001:0db8:2::1/64 (NIC B). These addresses > are assigned manually ($ipv6_ifconfig in rc.conf). > > 2. RA is periodically sent to the network 2001:0db8:1::1/64 (NIC A) > by a router on the subnet. The RA includes a source link-layer > address option only. > > When setting net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv=1 in this configuration, I > expected the box assigns an autoconf IPv6 address (prefix > 2001:0db8:1::/64 + EUI64) to NIC A and an default route based on > source link-layer address in the RA packet. Actually, these two were > done as expected. However, after addresses are assigned, routes for > NIC B disappeared from the routing table. More specifically, a > cloning route "2001:0db8:2::1/64 -> link#2" was removed for some > reason. > > Is this an expected behavior? I don't think so. Can you file a PR and get it assigned to bz@ and I'll look in two weeks or so once I am fully back. /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb The greatest risk is not taking one.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090117124940.D45399>