Re: [riot-devel] Neighbor solicitations (NS) from border router (6lo ND)

2018-12-18 Thread Martine Lenders
See [1] for a fix. [1] https://github.com/RIOT-OS/RIOT/pull/10627 Am Mo., 17. Dez. 2018 um 12:21 Uhr schrieb Martine Lenders < m...@martine-lenders.eu>: > Hi Thomas, > > Am Mo., 17. Dez. 2018 um 11:57 Uhr schrieb Thomas C. Schmidt < > t.schm...@haw-hamburg.de>: > >> Hi Martine, >> >> On

Re: [riot-devel] Neighbor solicitations (NS) from border router (6lo ND)

2018-12-17 Thread Martine Lenders
Hi Thomas, Am Mo., 17. Dez. 2018 um 11:57 Uhr schrieb Thomas C. Schmidt < t.schm...@haw-hamburg.de>: > Hi Martine, > > On 17/12/2018 11:17, Martine Lenders wrote: > > > at first glance this seems to be indeed a bug. If the prefix > > `2001:db8::/64` is configured for one interface, this should

Re: [riot-devel] Neighbor solicitations (NS) from border router (6lo ND)

2018-12-17 Thread Thomas C. Schmidt
Hi Martine, On 17/12/2018 11:17, Martine Lenders wrote: at first glance this seems to be indeed a bug. If the prefix `2001:db8::/64` is configured for one interface, this should be hint enough for the NDP to use that interface to multicast the NS there. I'll investigate that. However, I

Re: [riot-devel] Neighbor solicitations (NS) from border router (6lo ND)

2018-12-17 Thread Martine Lenders
Hi, at first glance this seems to be indeed a bug. If the prefix `2001:db8::/64` is configured for one interface, this should be hint enough for the NDP to use that interface to multicast the NS there. I'll investigate that. However, I have to add that RFC 6775 (which applies for the border

Re: [riot-devel] Neighbor solicitations (NS) from border router (6lo ND)

2018-12-17 Thread Thomas C. Schmidt
Hi Joakim, On 17/12/2018 09:37, Joakim Nohlgård wrote: Thank you for your answer. OK I think I understand what you mean, but is this really the correct behavior? It was certainly unexpected to me to have the packets go out the default route instead of on the interface with the configured

Re: [riot-devel] Neighbor solicitations (NS) from border router (6lo ND)

2018-12-17 Thread Joakim Nohlgård
Hi Thomas, Thank you for your answer. OK I think I understand what you mean, but is this really the correct behavior? It was certainly unexpected to me to have the packets go out the default route instead of on the interface with the configured prefix. I will try to elaborate: I have a prefix

Re: [riot-devel] Neighbor solicitations (NS) from border router (6lo ND)

2018-12-17 Thread Thomas C. Schmidt
Hi Joakim, it appears that you are experimenting with a special case. Normally, a sending node decides on the outgoing interface based on the destination IP prefix. If you don't have a more specific routing entry, the default IF is correctly chosen in your case. After the interface is

[riot-devel] Neighbor solicitations (NS) from border router (6lo ND)

2018-12-17 Thread Joakim Nohlgård
Hi developers, When using the shell on the gnrc_border_router application trying to send to an unknown address with its designated prefix, the application does not send any neighbor solicitations on the wireless network. When I type ping6 2001:db8::1234 I expected that a neighbor solicitation