On 04/09/13 21:33, Todd T. Fries wrote:
Penned by andy on 20130904 15:21.22, we have:
| Hi, one last question.
|
| I am reading through lots of examples and documentation on OpenBSD and v6
| and most seem to refer to adding the v6 address to /etc/hostname.X as an
| 'alias', e.g.;
| inet 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0
| inet6 alias fec0:2029:f001:128::40 64
|
| I have our test setup working now without the 'alias' directive, so should
| it have an 'alias' or not?
|
| I cannot see that it should, as its not an inet alias. The interface has
| one inet, and one inet6.
|
| If there were any additional inet or inet6 lines then those lines should
| have the alias directive, but why should the first inet6 have an 'alias'
| when it is not an alias address to the v4 address?
|
| Sorry to obsess about the details on this but want to get this completely
| correct in the eyes of the developers?
|
| Cheers, Andy.
At one point itojun@ had told me that the first IPv6 address is the link
local, all others are aliases. ifconfig(8) would actually warn if you
did not use the 'alias' syntax when there was an existing address. This
warning has subsequently been removed.
Ahhh, that makes perfect sense! Thank you very much :)
It has been since stated in this thread that 'ifconfig X inet6 2001:db8::1'
unconditionally adds that as an alias.
Note this is different than the IPv4 case where without an alias it would
remove the first IPv4 address while adding the new address to the end of
the interface list of addresses.
So it would seem 'inet6 alias 2001:db8::1' is not needed. Experimenting
confirms this is the case.
My $.02 is that we should remove all mention of 'inet6 alias' in hostname.if(5)
while retaining the ability to handle it (e.g. in /etc/netstart).
Thanks,
| On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 13:55:27 +0100, Andy <a...@brandwatch.com> wrote:
| > Hi Stuart, yea I realised that after, it's also implied I guess as its
| > using an IPv4 address after all.
| >
| > I will probably remove it as I didn't need it for IPv4 before. I was
| > just trying everything I thought might be relevant to get it working
| > when the real problem was not setting up my test environment properly...
| >
| > Considering the differences between v4 and v6 (ndp etc), would carppeer
| > be more useful for v6 (I know it is currently v4 only)?
| >
| > I would prefer to not have to use carppeer as it is another thing to
| > manage and configure correctly, but my priority is stability and
| > speed(does it improve the speed of CARP setup/detection etc)?
| >
| > Thanks for your help :) Andy
| >
| >
| > On Sat 31 Aug 2013 23:25:12 BST, Stuart Henderson wrote:
| >> On 2013-08-30, Andy <a...@brandwatch.com> wrote:
| >>> cat /etc/hostname.carp0
| >>> inet 18.2.32.10 255.255.255.0 18.2.32.255
| >>> inet6 a00:7e0::a 64
| >>> carpdev em0 carppeer 18.2.32.12 vhid 201 pass testpass advbase 3
| advskew
| >>> 0 description "WAN"
| >>
| >> hmm, I wonder if we should extended the description of carppeer in
| >> ifconfig(8) to make it clear that it's only for v4...
