On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 10:28:22AM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:00:28AM +0200, Yannis Nikolopoulos wrote:
we've encountered a weird problem on our dual-stack (anycast) resolvers
and I'm wondering if anyone else has experienced anything similar.
Basically
Hi!
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:45:09AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Hannes Frederic Sowa
Let me cook up a patch this week and depending on the size we maybe can
get this into stable.
Wow, that¹ was fast, thanks! \o/
The reason why I hurried is that 3.13 just got released which
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:59:39AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
Or, even better, get rid of the tunneling crap and get native IPv6. This
is a very common problem for IPv6 tunnels. As a web site operator I
would actually prefer it if people stayed IPv4-only until their ISP
could provide them
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 03:00:33PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:49:56PM +, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
Gert Doering g...@space.net writes:
So I would activate both IPPROTO_IPV6/IPV6_RECVPKTINFO *and*
SOL_IP/IP_PKTINFO, and depending on the real address
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:40:05PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
there is a lot of Linux IPv6 knowhow here, let's see if this rings a bell
for someone.
OpenVPN currently uses a single UDP socket for it's network communication,
which means that on a server with more than one IPv6 address,
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 07:14:24PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
Once you're doing that, it's probably easier to handle L=1 by simply
adding the on-link route directly, rather than adding the address as a
/64 and relying on the kernel to add the route for you. The two should
result
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 12:42:43PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Hannes Frederic Sowa
It also had some affect of anycast address generation.
But you are right, essentially it should work but some assumptions were
made in the kernel which should have been checked first.
I guess
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 12:49:15PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
Yes it is and I fixed that yesterday. I guess, I should ask that the patch
should be pushed to stable.
Sorry, forgot the link:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net.git/commit/?id
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 04:51:59PM +0100, Emmanuel Thierry wrote:
Le 30 déc. 2013 à 16:10, S.P.Zeidler a écrit :
Thus wrote Tarko Tikan (ta...@lanparty.ee):
Agreed this wasn't the best example but it's valid for two default
gw's as well.
... not if your operating system will
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 02:09:01PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 29/12/2013 13:12, Philipp Kern wrote:
that's basically what I said. I added the additional point that the DHCP
server gives out different gateways for load balancing reasons.
Right, I just misunderstood what you were saying.
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 03:41:58PM +0100, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
It should be possible to have a network running DHCP without any RA, if
someone wants to do that. As far as I know, and you need RAs in todays
world because DHCPv6 can not give out defaultroute. It break the
standard if it
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 05:57:14PM +0100, Marco Sommani wrote:
On 28/dic/2013, at 17:36, Hannes Frederic Sowa han...@stressinduktion.org
wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 03:41:58PM +0100, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
It should be possible to have a network running DHCP without any RA
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:30:42AM -0500, Simon Perreault wrote:
Le 2013-12-19 11:22, Hannes Frederic Sowa a écrit :
NM has a user-space RA listener.
Any pointers to documentation? I'm trying to investigate...
I guess that is a bug and there is no documentation on it yet. ;)
One could check
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 06:46:52PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 01:28:20AM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
Sigh. Why do we keep reinventing the wheel? What was wrong with the
in-kernel RA implementation?
On Linux, enough. Like, not noticing when you change
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 04:45:51PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no wrote:
Some cool news to start the day with:
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/TMobile-Goes-IPv6-Only-on-Android-44-Devices-126506
Yesss!
Nice to see that
Hi Fred!
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:05:14PM +, Templin, Fred L wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-ops-bounces+fred.l.templin=boeing@lists.cluenet.de
[mailto:ipv6-ops-
bounces+fred.l.templin=boeing@lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of Hannes
Frederic Sowa
Sent: Friday
Hi!
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 04:35:39PM +, Templin, Fred L wrote:
There is basis support for mtu probing for tcp. It is currently
deactivated by
default: cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_mtu_probing = 0
Guess it had not the seen the testing it needs to activate it by
default.
Yes, I
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:35:50AM +0100, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 15/08/13 11:31, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 07:39:23AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Max Tulyev wrote:
What is the soultion? There are *MILLIONS* of flows in the backbone
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 02:08:01PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote:
I have some additional info about the issue I found.
Even if no traffic and no full-view, but a lot of interfaces (tunnel
broker node is a good sample), the static routes are duplicating.
That is definitely NOT a route cache
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 02:11:32PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
[Sorry, missed the list]
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 02:38:30PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote:
Hi Hannes,
The situation is same on 2.6.36-gentoo-r8 and 3.10.6-gentoo.
3.10.6-gentoo is a bit worse: quagga/bgpd is hang at start
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 04:06:11PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote:
On 15.08.13 15:14, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
You can also monitor routing insertion/deletion with ip -6 monitor route.
Yes! I think it shows the problem more. There are a lot of this errors:
I don't see timestamp but I
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 08:00:49PM +0300, Max Tulyev wrote:
On 14.08.13 13:59, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
If a packet is delivered to a destination, we clone the routing entry and
reinsert it back into the fib trie.
Does it mean the original route is keept or deleted?
Does it do
Hello!
(I am the author of the patch discussed here.)
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 02:40:50PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
If we don't compile with CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF (RFC4191 support) a
neighbour is only valid if its nud_state is NUD_VALID. I did not find
any references that we should
23 matches
Mail list logo
