From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Greear Subject: Re: radvd and auto-ipv6 address regression from 2.6.31 to 2.6.34+ Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:13:56 -0700 Message-ID: <4CD48FB4.2050903@candelatech.com> References: <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]:42444 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755182Ab0KEXN6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Nov 2010 19:13:58 -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 oA5NDuZF031171 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 5 Nov 2010 16:13:56 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4CD47622.5040507@candelatech.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/05/2010 02:24 PM, Ben Greear wrote: > > 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? Actually, this doesn't seem to work for 2.6.31 either, so I guess it isn't a regression. Is it expected behaviour, however? Thanks, Ben > > Thanks, > Ben > -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com