ipv6 routing broken in 2.6.17-rc3,4

Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed

* ipv6 routing broken in 2.6.17-rc3,4
@ 2006-05-15  6:18 Meelis Roos
  2006-05-15 16:05 ` Pekka Savola
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Meelis Roos @ 2006-05-15  6:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: netdev

On my home 6to4 gw, ipv6 routing seems to be broken and everything is 
sent to 6to4 tunnel (the default route). It worked with 
fine for a long time and with 2.6.17-rc2-g4d5c34ec and it's broken with 
vmlinuz-2.6.17-rc3-g3cd73eed and 2.6.17-rc4-g9be2f7c3 (yesterdays 
kernel).

Example (I add an unreachable route to an ipv6 address to force going 
there by ipv4 and it still uses the route):

vaarikas:~# ip -6 route add unreachable 2001:7a8:1:5::14
vaarikas:~# ping6 2001:7a8:1:5::14
PING 2001:7a8:1:5::14(2001:7a8:1:5::14) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 2001:7a8:1:5::14: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=56.7 ms
64 bytes from 2001:7a8:1:5::14: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=55.5 ms

--- 2001:7a8:1:5::14 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 999ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 55.573/56.155/56.738/0.628 ms
vaarikas:~# ip -6 route
::/96 via :: dev tun6to4  metric 256  expires 21332659sec mtu 1480 advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295
unreachable 2001:7a8:1:5::14 dev lo  metric 1024  expires 21334221sec error -101 mtu 16436 advmss 16376 hoplimit 4294967295
2002:5283:297e:2::/64 dev eth0  metric 256  expires 21332659sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
2002:5283:297e::/48 dev tun6to4  metric 256  expires 21332659sec mtu 1480 advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295
2000::/3 via ::192.88.99.1 dev tun6to4  metric 1  expires 21332659sec mtu 1480 advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295
fe80::/64 dev eth0  metric 256  expires 21332650sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
fe80::/64 dev eth1  metric 256  expires 21332654sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
fe80::/64 dev tun6to4  metric 256  expires 21332659sec mtu 1480 advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295
ff00::/8 dev eth1  metric 256  expires 21332654sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
ff00::/8 dev tun6to4  metric 256  expires 21332659sec mtu 1480 advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295
ff00::/8 dev eth0  metric 256  expires 21332650sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
unreachable default dev lo  proto none  metric -1  error -101 hoplimit 255

Additional example: nothing goes in the direction of eth0, the packets 
that should go there also go to tun6to4 interface as confirmed by 
tcpdump. I have a laptop on eth0 and when I tracepath6 some external 
address, I get this from tun4to4 device on the gw:

vaarikas:~# tcpdump -n -s 1500 -vv -i tun6to4
tcpdump: WARNING: tun6to4: no IPv4 address assigned
tcpdump: listening on tun6to4, link-type RAW (Raw IP), capture size 1500 bytes
09:14:08.053137 IP6 (hlim 64, next-header: ICMPv6 (58), length: 1240) 2002:5283:297e::42 > 2002:5283:297e:2:210:60ff:fe5a:d6f5: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, time exceeded in-transit, length 1240 for 2001:ad0::10
09:14:09.050230 IP6 (hlim 64, next-header: ICMPv6 (58), length: 1240) 2002:5283:297e::42 > 2002:5283:297e:2:210:60ff:fe5a:d6f5: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, time exceeded in-transit, length 1240 for 2001:ad0::10
09:14:10.091294 IP6 (hlim 64, next-header: ICMPv6 (58), length: 1240) 2002:5283:297e::42 > 2002:5283:297e:2:210:60ff:fe5a:d6f5: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, time exceeded in-transit, length 1240 for 2001:ad0::10
09:14:11.090985 IP6 (hlim 64, next-header: ICMPv6 (58), length: 1240) 2002:5283:297e::42 > 2002:5283:297e:2:210:60ff:fe5a:d6f5: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, packet too big, length 1240, mtu 1480
09:14:12.090354 IP6 (hlim 64, next-header: ICMPv6 (58), length: 1240) 2002:5283:297e::42 > 2002:5283:297e:2:210:60ff:fe5a:d6f5: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, packet too big, length 1240, mtu 1480
09:14:13.090373 IP6 (hlim 64, next-header: ICMPv6 (58), length: 1240) 2002:5283:297e::42 > 2002:5283:297e:2:210:60ff:fe5a:d6f5: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, packet too big, length 1240, mtu 1480
09:14:14.091355 IP6 (hlim 64, next-header: ICMPv6 (58), length: 1240) 2002:5283:297e::42 > 2002:5283:297e:2:210:60ff:fe5a:d6f5: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, packet too big, length 1240, mtu 1480
...

-- 
Meelis Roos (mroos@linux.ee)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: ipv6 routing broken in 2.6.17-rc3,4
  2006-05-15  6:18 ipv6 routing broken in 2.6.17-rc3,4 Meelis Roos
@ 2006-05-15 16:05 ` Pekka Savola
  2006-05-15 17:30   ` Meelis Roos
                     ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Pekka Savola @ 2006-05-15 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Meelis Roos; +Cc: netdev

On Mon, 15 May 2006, Meelis Roos wrote:
> On my home 6to4 gw, ipv6 routing seems to be broken and everything is sent to 
> 6to4 tunnel (the default route). It worked with fine for a long time and with 
> 2.6.17-rc2-g4d5c34ec and it's broken with vmlinuz-2.6.17-rc3-g3cd73eed and 
> 2.6.17-rc4-g9be2f7c3 (yesterdays kernel).
...
> vaarikas:~# ip -6 route
> 2002:5283:297e::/48 dev tun6to4  metric 256  expires 21332659sec mtu 1480 
> advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295

You're using the wrong prefix length.  The right one is /16.  Does 
that work?

Maybe the 6to4 hack which didn't heed routing table (so either prefix 
length was OK) was removed or changed...

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: ipv6 routing broken in 2.6.17-rc3,4
  2006-05-15 16:05 ` Pekka Savola
@ 2006-05-15 17:30   ` Meelis Roos
  2006-05-15 17:38   ` Meelis Roos
                     ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Meelis Roos @ 2006-05-15 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pekka Savola; +Cc: netdev

>> vaarikas:~# ip -6 route
>> 2002:5283:297e::/48 dev tun6to4  metric 256  expires 21332659sec mtu 1480 
>> advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295
>
> You're using the wrong prefix length.  The right one is /16.  Does that work?

Will try soon today. But the other routes had mor specific masks anyway -
/64 and /128, so why should it change anything?

-- 
Meelis Roos (mroos@linux.ee)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: ipv6 routing broken in 2.6.17-rc3,4
  2006-05-15 16:05 ` Pekka Savola
  2006-05-15 17:30   ` Meelis Roos
@ 2006-05-15 17:38   ` Meelis Roos
  2006-05-25 20:17   ` Meelis Roos
  2006-05-25 23:24   ` Meelis Roos
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Meelis Roos @ 2006-05-15 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pekka Savola; +Cc: netdev

>> vaarikas:~# ip -6 route
>> 2002:5283:297e::/48 dev tun6to4  metric 256  expires 21332659sec mtu 1480 
>> advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295
>
> You're using the wrong prefix length.  The right one is /16.  Does that work?

Changed tun6to4 to 2002::/16, still the same (packets for eth0 and the
unreachable destination still go to tun6to4).

# ip -6 route
::/96 via :: dev tun6to4  metric 256  expires 21334342sec mtu 1480 advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295
unreachable 2001:7a8:1:5::14 dev lo  metric 1024  expires 21334363sec error -101 mtu 16436 advmss 16376 hoplimit 4294967295
2002:5283:2811:2::/64 dev eth0  metric 256  expires 21334342sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
2002::/16 dev tun6to4  metric 256  expires 21334342sec mtu 1480 advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295
2000::/3 via ::192.88.99.1 dev tun6to4  metric 1  expires 21334342sec mtu 1480 advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295
fe80::/64 dev eth0  metric 256  expires 21332676sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
fe80::/64 dev eth1  metric 256  expires 21334336sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
fe80::/64 dev tun6to4  metric 256  expires 21334342sec mtu 1480 advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295
ff00::/8 dev eth1  metric 256  expires 21334336sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
ff00::/8 dev tun6to4  metric 256  expires 21334342sec mtu 1480 advmss 1420 hoplimit 4294967295
ff00::/8 dev eth0  metric 256  expires 21332676sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
unreachable default dev lo  proto none  metric -1  error -101 hoplimit 255

-- 
Meelis Roos (mroos@linux.ee)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: ipv6 routing broken in 2.6.17-rc3,4
  2006-05-15 16:05 ` Pekka Savola
  2006-05-15 17:30   ` Meelis Roos
  2006-05-15 17:38   ` Meelis Roos
@ 2006-05-25 20:17   ` Meelis Roos
  2006-05-25 23:24   ` Meelis Roos
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Meelis Roos @ 2006-05-25 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pekka Savola; +Cc: netdev

>> On my home 6to4 gw, ipv6 routing seems to be broken and everything is sent 
>> to 6to4 tunnel (the default route). It worked with fine for a long time and 
>> with 2.6.17-rc2-g4d5c34ec and it's broken with vmlinuz-2.6.17-rc3-g3cd73eed 
>> and 2.6.17-rc4-g9be2f7c3 (yesterdays kernel).

So far I have narrowed it down to break between 2.6.16 (working) and 
2.6.17-rc1 (not working).

-- 
Meelis Roos (mroos@linux.ee)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: ipv6 routing broken in 2.6.17-rc3,4
  2006-05-15 16:05 ` Pekka Savola
                     ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2006-05-25 20:17   ` Meelis Roos
@ 2006-05-25 23:24   ` Meelis Roos
  2006-05-26  1:40     ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Meelis Roos @ 2006-05-25 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki; +Cc: Pekka Savola, netdev


(To YOSHIFUJI Hideaki: this is about the
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/35262 thread)

Tracked it down to IPV6 merge at 2006-03-21:
commit cd85f6e2f58282186ad720fc18482be228f0b972 is good (right before 
the bunch of patches)
commit b00055aacdb172c05067612278ba27265fcd05ce is bad (right after the 
bunch of changes)

http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=705af309505681f197f81618440954d10f120dc0;pg=44 
shows the list of committs at that range.

-- 
Meelis Roos (mroos@linux.ee)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: ipv6 routing broken in 2.6.17-rc3,4
  2006-05-25 23:24   ` Meelis Roos
@ 2006-05-26  1:40     ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
       [not found]       ` <20060526.104245.106225873.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 @ 2006-05-26  1:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: mroos; +Cc: pekkas, netdev, yoshfuji

In article <Pine.SOC.4.61.0605260219270.13718@math.ut.ee> (at Fri, 26 May 2006 02:24:19 +0300 (EEST)), Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee> says:

> 
> (To YOSHIFUJI Hideaki: this is about the
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/35262 thread)
> 
> Tracked it down to IPV6 merge at 2006-03-21:
> commit cd85f6e2f58282186ad720fc18482be228f0b972 is good (right before 
> the bunch of patches)
> commit b00055aacdb172c05067612278ba27265fcd05ce is bad (right after the 
> bunch of changes)

I guess rt6_select() is returning &ip6_null_entry and
the caller is finding next best route; e.g. default route.

Does this solve your problem?

diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
index 0190e39..93eb33c 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
@@ -280,10 +280,12 @@ static int inline rt6_check_neigh(struct
 {
 	struct neighbour *neigh = rt->rt6i_nexthop;
 	int m = 0;
-	if (neigh) {
+	if (rt->rt6i_flags & RTF_NONEXTHOP)
+		m = 1;
+	else if (neigh) {
 		read_lock_bh(&neigh->lock);
 		if (neigh->nud_state & NUD_VALID)
-			m = 1;
+			m = 2;
 		read_unlock_bh(&neigh->lock);
 	}
 	return m;
@@ -292,15 +294,18 @@ static int inline rt6_check_neigh(struct
 static int rt6_score_route(struct rt6_info *rt, int oif,
 			   int strict)
 {
-	int m = rt6_check_dev(rt, oif);
+	int m, n
+		
+	m = rt6_check_dev(rt, oif);
 	if (!m && (strict & RT6_SELECT_F_IFACE))
 		return -1;
 #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF
 	m |= IPV6_DECODE_PREF(IPV6_EXTRACT_PREF(rt->rt6i_flags)) << 2;
 #endif
-	if (rt6_check_neigh(rt))
+	n = rt6_check_neigh(rt);
+	if (n > 1)
 		m |= 16;
-	else if (strict & RT6_SELECT_F_REACHABLE)
+	else if (!n && strict & RT6_SELECT_F_REACHABLE)
 		return -1;
 	return m;
 }

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

[parent not found: <20060526.104245.106225873.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>]

* Re: ipv6 routing broken in 2.6.17-rc3,4
       [not found]       ` <20060526.104245.106225873.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
@ 2006-05-26  8:35         ` Meelis Roos
  2006-05-26 10:08           ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Meelis Roos @ 2006-05-26  8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明; +Cc: pekkas, netdev

>>> (To YOSHIFUJI Hideaki: this is about the
>>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/35262 thread)
> :
>> I guess rt6_select() is returning &ip6_null_entry and
>> the caller is finding next best route; e.g. default route.
>>
>> Does this solve your problem?
>
> Sorry, typo...

The unreachable route works now but LAN routing still does not work. 
Locally generated ICMPv6 packets that should go to LAN interface still 
go to tun6to4.

-- 
Meelis Roos (mroos@linux.ee)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: ipv6 routing broken in 2.6.17-rc3,4
  2006-05-26  8:35         ` Meelis Roos
@ 2006-05-26 10:08           ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
  2006-05-26 10:44             ` Meelis Roos
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 @ 2006-05-26 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: mroos; +Cc: pekkas, netdev, yoshfuji

In article <Pine.SOC.4.61.0605261134250.18708@math.ut.ee> (at Fri, 26 May 2006 11:35:53 +0300 (EEST)), Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee> says:

> The unreachable route works now but LAN routing still does not work. 
> Locally generated ICMPv6 packets that should go to LAN interface still 
> go to tun6to4.

Please try this.

----
[IPV6] ROUTE: Don't try less preferred routes for on-link routes.

In addition to the real on-link routes, NONEXTHOP routes
should be considered on-link.

Problem reported by Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee>.

Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>

diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
index 0190e39..8a77793 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
@@ -280,10 +280,13 @@ static int inline rt6_check_neigh(struct
 {
 	struct neighbour *neigh = rt->rt6i_nexthop;
 	int m = 0;
-	if (neigh) {
+	if (rt->rt6i_flags & RTF_NONEXTHOP ||
+	    !(rt->rt6i_flags & RTF_GATEWAY))
+		m = 1;
+	else if (neigh) {
 		read_lock_bh(&neigh->lock);
 		if (neigh->nud_state & NUD_VALID)
-			m = 1;
+			m = 2;
 		read_unlock_bh(&neigh->lock);
 	}
 	return m;
@@ -292,15 +295,18 @@ static int inline rt6_check_neigh(struct
 static int rt6_score_route(struct rt6_info *rt, int oif,
 			   int strict)
 {
-	int m = rt6_check_dev(rt, oif);
+	int m, n;
+		
+	m = rt6_check_dev(rt, oif);
 	if (!m && (strict & RT6_SELECT_F_IFACE))
 		return -1;
 #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF
 	m |= IPV6_DECODE_PREF(IPV6_EXTRACT_PREF(rt->rt6i_flags)) << 2;
 #endif
-	if (rt6_check_neigh(rt))
+	n = rt6_check_neigh(rt);
+	if (n > 1)
 		m |= 16;
-	else if (strict & RT6_SELECT_F_REACHABLE)
+	else if (!n && strict & RT6_SELECT_F_REACHABLE)
 		return -1;
 	return m;
 }


--yoshfuji

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: ipv6 routing broken in 2.6.17-rc3,4
  2006-05-26 10:08           ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
@ 2006-05-26 10:44             ` Meelis Roos
  2006-05-26 11:01               ` [PATCH] [IPV6] ROUTE: Don't try less preferred routes for on-link routes YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Meelis Roos @ 2006-05-26 10:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明; +Cc: pekkas, netdev

>> The unreachable route works now but LAN routing still does not work.
>> Locally generated ICMPv6 packets that should go to LAN interface still
>> go to tun6to4.
>
> Please try this.

This works for both unreachable and LAN routes, thanks!

-- 
Meelis Roos (mroos@linux.ee)

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* [PATCH] [IPV6] ROUTE: Don't try less preferred routes for on-link routes.
  2006-05-26 10:44             ` Meelis Roos
@ 2006-05-26 11:01               ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
  2006-05-26 20:24                 ` David Miller
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 @ 2006-05-26 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: davem; +Cc: mroos, yoshfuji, netdev

David,

In article <Pine.SOC.4.61.0605261344340.26383@math.ut.ee> (at Fri, 26 May 2006 13:44:59 +0300 (EEST)), Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee> says:

> >> The unreachable route works now but LAN routing still does not work.
> >> Locally generated ICMPv6 packets that should go to LAN interface still
> >> go to tun6to4.
> >
> > Please try this.
> 
> This works for both unreachable and LAN routes, thanks!

Please push this to 2.6.17-final.

Regards,

-------
[IPV6] ROUTE: Don't try less preferred routes for on-link routes.

In addition to the real on-link routes, NONEXTHOP routes
should be considered on-link.

Problem reported by Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee>.

Signed-off-by: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Acked-by: Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee>

diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
index 0190e39..8a77793 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
@@ -280,10 +280,13 @@ static int inline rt6_check_neigh(struct
 {
 	struct neighbour *neigh = rt->rt6i_nexthop;
 	int m = 0;
-	if (neigh) {
+	if (rt->rt6i_flags & RTF_NONEXTHOP ||
+	    !(rt->rt6i_flags & RTF_GATEWAY))
+		m = 1;
+	else if (neigh) {
 		read_lock_bh(&neigh->lock);
 		if (neigh->nud_state & NUD_VALID)
-			m = 1;
+			m = 2;
 		read_unlock_bh(&neigh->lock);
 	}
 	return m;
@@ -292,15 +295,18 @@ static int inline rt6_check_neigh(struct
 static int rt6_score_route(struct rt6_info *rt, int oif,
 			   int strict)
 {
-	int m = rt6_check_dev(rt, oif);
+	int m, n;
+		
+	m = rt6_check_dev(rt, oif);
 	if (!m && (strict & RT6_SELECT_F_IFACE))
 		return -1;
 #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF
 	m |= IPV6_DECODE_PREF(IPV6_EXTRACT_PREF(rt->rt6i_flags)) << 2;
 #endif
-	if (rt6_check_neigh(rt))
+	n = rt6_check_neigh(rt);
+	if (n > 1)
 		m |= 16;
-	else if (strict & RT6_SELECT_F_REACHABLE)
+	else if (!n && strict & RT6_SELECT_F_REACHABLE)
 		return -1;
 	return m;
 }

-- 
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki @ USAGI Project  <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
GPG-FP  : 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF  80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] [IPV6] ROUTE: Don't try less preferred routes for on-link routes.
  2006-05-26 11:01               ` [PATCH] [IPV6] ROUTE: Don't try less preferred routes for on-link routes YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
@ 2006-05-26 20:24                 ` David Miller
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2006-05-26 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: yoshfuji; +Cc: mroos, netdev

From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 20:01:56 +0900 (JST)

> In article <Pine.SOC.4.61.0605261344340.26383@math.ut.ee> (at Fri, 26 May 2006 13:44:59 +0300 (EEST)), Meelis Roos <mroos@linux.ee> says:
> 
> > >> The unreachable route works now but LAN routing still does not work.
> > >> Locally generated ICMPv6 packets that should go to LAN interface still
> > >> go to tun6to4.
> > >
> > > Please try this.
> > 
> > This works for both unreachable and LAN routes, thanks!
> 
> Please push this to 2.6.17-final.

Applied, thank you very much.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2006-05-26 20:23 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-05-15  6:18 ipv6 routing broken in 2.6.17-rc3,4 Meelis Roos
2006-05-15 16:05 ` Pekka Savola
2006-05-15 17:30   ` Meelis Roos
2006-05-15 17:38   ` Meelis Roos
2006-05-25 20:17   ` Meelis Roos
2006-05-25 23:24   ` Meelis Roos
2006-05-26  1:40     ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
     [not found]       ` <20060526.104245.106225873.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
2006-05-26  8:35         ` Meelis Roos
2006-05-26 10:08           ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
2006-05-26 10:44             ` Meelis Roos
2006-05-26 11:01               ` [PATCH] [IPV6] ROUTE: Don't try less preferred routes for on-link routes YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
2006-05-26 20:24                 ` David Miller

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox