patch: bad ipv6 neighbor solicitation
Li, Qing
qing.li at bluecoat.com
Tue Dec 15 21:45:55 UTC 2009
Thanks for reporting back. I asked you for a routing table dump
in my previous email, would you mind emailing it to me privately?
-- Qing
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Pusateri [mailto:pusateri at bangj.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:28 PM
> To: Li, Qing
> Cc: freebsd-net at freebsd.org; freebsd-stable at freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: patch: bad ipv6 neighbor solicitation
>
> 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
> >
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~qingli/nd6-patch.diff
> >
> > I realized I was slightly off in my previous email after
> > I spent a bit more time looking through the problem.
> > 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).
> >
> > I evaluated various options to fixing this issue, however,
> > due to the association between NDPRF_ONLINK and the route
> > installation, I decided to go with what I have here for
> > the time being.
> >
> > I have verified the fix in my setup. Please apply the
> > patch and report back.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -- Qing
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-freebsd-net at freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> >> net at freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Li, Qing
> >> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 3:00 PM
> >> To: Dennis Glatting; JASSAL Aman
> >> Cc: freebsd-net at freebsd.org
> >> Subject: RE: Understanding multiple IPv6 interfaces under 8.0 (fwd)
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Again, in case you didn't see my earlier reply, try the temporary
> hack
> >> at
> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~qingli/nd6-ns.diff
> >>
> >> until I commit a permanent patch. The problem was easily
> reproducible
> >> and
> >> I have verified with limited unit testing the patch works.
> >>
> >> -- Qing
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-freebsd-net at freebsd.org on behalf of Dennis Glatting
> >> Sent: Mon 12/14/2009 2:03 PM
> >> To: JASSAL Aman
> >> Cc: freebsd-net at freebsd.org
> >> Subject: Re: Understanding multiple IPv6 interfaces under 8.0 (fwd)
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks. Responses in-line.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, JASSAL Aman wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello Mr.Glatting,
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Le Dim 13 d?cembre 2009 22:58, Dennis Glatting a ?crit :
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Elmer# netstat -rn
> >>>> Routing tables
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Internet6:
> >>>> Destination Gateway
> >> Flags
> >>>> Netif Expire
> >>>> ::/96 ::1
> > UGRS
> >>>> lo0 => 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I was wondering about the route however I haven't figured out the
> > trick
> >> to
> >> get what I want. For example:
> >>
> >> Elmer# route delete -inet6 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a
> >> delete host fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> 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:
> >>
> >> Elmer# route delete -inet6 fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a
> >> delete host fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a
> >>
> >> 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
> >>
> >> Elmer# netstat -rn
> >> (snip)
> >> fd7c:3f2b:e791:1:0:1:ac13:a0a 00:13:72:60:ac:50 UHS
> >> bce1
> >>
> >> 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:
> >>
> >> Elmer# route add -inet6 docs.dco.penx.com -iface bce1
> >> add host docs.dco.penx.com: gateway bce1
> >>
> >> Elmer# ping6
> >> docs.penx.com
> >> PING6(56=40+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=-1
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Elmer's rc.config:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ipv6_enable="YES" ipv6_network_interfaces="bce0 bce1"
> >>>> ipv6_ifconfig_bce0="FD7C:3F2B:E791:0001::0:172.19.10.10 prefixlen
> >> 64"
> >>>> ipv6_ifconfig_bce1="FD7C:3F2B:E791:0001::1:172.19.10.10 prefixlen
> > 64
> >> mtu
> >>>> 8192"
> >>>> ipv6_defaultrouter="FD7C:3F2B:E791:0001::1"
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The router (cisco):
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> interface GigabitEthernet0/0 ipv6 address FD7C:3F2B:E791:1::1/64
> >> ipv6
> >>>> enable ipv6 nd prefix FD7C:3F2B:E791:1::/64 (etc)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> I hope this helps.
> >>>
> >>> ------------
> >>> Aman Jassal
> >>>
> >>> Wisdom comes from experience.
> >>> Experience comes from a lack of wisdom.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-
> unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
> >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-
> unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-
> unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
More information about the freebsd-stable
mailing list