From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: radvd and auto-ipv6 address regression from 2.6.31 to 2.6.34+ Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 14:24:50 -0700 Message-ID: <4CD47622.5040507@candelatech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: NetDev Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:45578 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752300Ab0KEVYu (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Nov 2010 17:24:50 -0400 Received: from [192.168.100.195] (firewall.candelatech.com [70.89.124.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns3.lanforge.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id oA5LOotg022748 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 14:24:50 -0700 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: I'm seeing something strange. I'm running radvd on a VETH interface (veth0 for argument) with a single global IPv6 address (and a link-local address). On hacked 2.6.31, this works as I expect: The veth0 interface does not gain or lose any IPv6 addresses and peer VETH port gets an auto-created IPv6 addresses. On hacked 2.6.34 and 2.6.36 kernels, however, the veth0 gains a new address that appears to be generated similar to other IPs associated with auto-creation via radvd. I have not yet tested intervening kernels or physical interfaces between two machines. So, the question is: Is the new behaviour on purpose, or is it a regression bug? Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com