On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:04:18 +0100
Daniel Bilik <[email protected]> wrote:
> A week ago I upgraded two systems where stf(4) is used. They were running
> 10-stable from beginning of September, with stf working fine. After
> upgrade, the address on stf0 stays "tentative" indefinitely.
I've finally got some time to analyze this more thoroughly. And indeed,
the problem was introduced with both r287734 (changes to in6if_do_dad() in
sys/netinet6/in6.c) and r290348 (changes to nd6_timer() in
sys/netinet6/nd6.c), specifically in combination with stf(4) interfaces not
being
marked "running". Attached patch fixes that. Should I create PR for this?
--
Dan
--- sys/net/if_stf.c.orig 2016-01-12 22:45:07.876281000 +0100
+++ sys/net/if_stf.c 2016-01-12 22:16:30.233678410 +0100
@@ -818,6 +818,7 @@ stf_ioctl(ifp, cmd, data)
ifa->ifa_rtrequest = stf_rtrequest;
ifp->if_flags |= IFF_UP;
+ ifp->if_drv_flags |= IFF_DRV_RUNNING;
break;
case SIOCADDMULTI:
--- sys/netinet6/in6.c.orig 2016-01-12 22:46:09.431221000 +0100
+++ sys/netinet6/in6.c 2016-01-12 22:11:22.173685329 +0100
@@ -2375,6 +2375,7 @@ in6if_do_dad(struct ifnet *ifp)
case IFT_DUMMY:
#endif
case IFT_FAITH:
+ case IFT_STF:
/*
* These interfaces do not have the IFF_LOOPBACK flag,
* but loop packets back. We do not have to do DAD on such
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
