On 12/06/13(Wed) 12:19, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2013/06/12 12:51, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > On 10/06/13(Mon) 02:05, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 06:34:27PM +0200, Christopher Zimmermann wrote:
> > > > inet 172.26.153.50 0xffffff00 NONE mtu 1398
> > > > 
> > > > in6_unlink_ifa: interface address 0xffff800000624a00 has no prefix
> > > > in6_unlink_ifa: interface address 0xffff800000624a00 has no prefix
> > > 
> > > The error message is triggered by ifconfig lo1 create up.  With
> > > address instead of pointer logging and sysctl net.inet6.icmp6.nd6_debug=1
> > > you see the source of the problem.
> > > 
> > > in6_unlink_ifa: interface address ::0001 has no prefix
> > > in6_ifattach_loopback: failed to configure the loopback address on lo1 
> > > (errno=17)
> > > 
> > > It is a different issue that creating lo1 tries to add a ::1 address.
> > > But when this fails, it is correct that it has no prefix.  So don't
> > > log an error here.
> 
> Diff is OK sthen.
> 
> > I'm not sure to understand here, you're saying that is it correct that
> > lo1 has no prefix because it is a loopback interface or because, in
> > this case adding an IPv6 address failed?
> > 
> > Martin
> > 
> 
> Both..
> 
> 1. it is correct that it has no prefix because it's a loopback address, and

Thanks for the explanation, I'm ok with the diff then. 

> 2. in6_unlink_ifa is called on the loopback address, which then complains
> about the adress.
> 
> but also:
> 
> 3. the reason for in6_unlink_ifa being called at all is because
> in6_ifattach_loopback automatically tries to add in6addr_loopback to a
> newly created lo interface, which is the wrong thing to do in the case
> of multiple lo(4) interfaces.
> 
> In the v4 case, 127.0.0.1 is set on the interface explicitly by /etc/netstart;
> v6 should probably do the same.
> 
> 

Reply via email to