Matti Andreas Kähäri <[email protected]> writes: > The KVM network is a bog standard IPv4-only thing that I haven't > changed, and which other non-NetBSD guests are using without issue.
I note that you have declined to understand and explain what it is doing. >> > I would suggest running "ifconfig", understanding the results especially >> > the address, ping and traceroute to your NAS. > > The _point_ of the Tailscale networking is to reach the NAS behind > my home firewall (and CG-NAT). There is a direct route through the > Tailscale network, without going through any DERP server. I understand the point. You can't conclude from the intent that things are 100% ok. > eeyore% tailscale ping disco > pong from disco (100.102.136.126) via XXX.255.241.178:14032 in 5ms > > Here, eeyore is the NetBSD system, and disco is the NAS, > "XXX.255.241.178" is the visible IP of my home router, but since I'm > behind a CG-NAT, I see a 100-something address on my router's actual WAN > interface. But not "ping", only "tailscale ping", which implies that your routing tables aren't set up right, and there is some tailscale wrapper that is [speculating now] doing some LD_PRELOAD of libc to replace the networking syscall functions with somethingelse. > I found a similar report from April in the pkgsrc-users list: > https://mail-index.netbsd.org/pkgsrc-users/2026/04/28/msg042883.html > > There, it was rsync, not restic, that triggered the error. Gueesing, this is probably a bug in tailscale. > I can actually see some 500 (Internal Server Error) responses, and > looking at the NAS logs, these corresponds to errors saying "Post > request put error: unexpected EOF" (and the same, but with "rcat error" > in place of "put error"). > > It's "rclone serve restic" listening on the NAS. Is it run under tailscale, or does tailscale work differently there? >> > "write: address family not supported by protocol family" >> > >> > I have a very dim memory of this happening either when writing via bpf >> > or various tunnels, when they are configured for one address family and >> > the packet written isn't right (or is interpreted as not right). > > Is it maybe chopping parts of the messages off? Unfortunately, I don't > really know the lower networking layers. I would expect that a write would work or not. But it is complicated, and figuring out what's wrong is very likely to need understanding.
