On Thu, 2005-05-26 at 10:22 -0400, Alex Kirk wrote: <SNIP> > Internet6: > Destination Gateway Flags > default ::1 UG > default ::1 UG <SNIP> > Further attempts at route deletion result in: > > schnarff.com:~$ sudo route delete -inet6 default > writing to routing socket: No such process > delete net default: not in table
Try "route delete -inet6 default gw ::1" to remove them. > This looks thoroughly broken, but as I'm not the IPv6 expert here, I don't > know > how to fix it. man route :) > > Try pinging 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f5, 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f4 etc and > > then try something remote, or just try something remote and see if that > > works. If you can't ping the ::28f4 then your tunnel is broken, use > > tcpdump on the IPv4 interface (fxp0 in your case) to see if you get any > > packets, like proto-41 unreach back from the remote side or from > > intermediate routers. Or if you get packets back but the kernel filters > > them out -> firewall issue. > > I can't ping the ::28f4 address. When I run tcpdump (which I have to do on > gif0, > not fxp0, if I want IPv6 traffic), I get: > > schnarff.com:~$ sudo tcpdump -n -i gif0 > tcpdump: WARNING: gif0: no IPv4 address assigned > tcpdump: listening on gif0 > 10:12:37.890333 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f5 > 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f4: icmp6: > echo > request > 10:12:38.890316 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f5 > 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f4: icmp6: > echo > request > 10:12:39.890308 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f5 > 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f4: icmp6: > echo > request > 10:12:40.890305 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f5 > 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f4: icmp6: > echo > request As I mentioned, dump fxp0 as now you don't see which source/dest IPv4 you are using and neither are you seeing any ICMP (v4) proto-41 unreaches if the remote side actually doesn't like you. > Looks like the other side isn't paying any attention to me. Of course, seeing > this, I noted that ::28f5 appeared to be where I was coming from, so I tried > setting that as my default route. At that point, I could ping myself (at > ::28f5), but I couldn't hit, say, 2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085: How exactly did your routing table look like after you did exactly what? You should end up with something like: default 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f4 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f5 :: dev gif0 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f4 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f5 dev gif0 > schnarff.com:~$ ping6 www.kame.net > PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2001:5c0:8fff:fffe::28f5 --> > 2001:200:0:8002:203:47ff:fea5:3085 > ping6: sendmsg: No route to host > ping6: wrote www.kame.net 16 chars, ret=-1 > ping6: sendmsg: No route to host > ping6: wrote www.kame.net 16 chars, ret=-1 > > > Good thing about IPv6, you can destroy it and IPv4 keeps working. > > Alternatively when you have IPv4 and IPv6 native, like me, either of the > > two can die, get firewalled and it will still work ;) > > I'm well aware of this...I just didn't want to start touching "default" > routes, > since a simple syntax error on my part could result in the whacking of my IPv4 > default route. IPv6 tools don't touch the IPv4 ones, unless they are severely broken. > Given this, does the need to have some modern documentation on the subject > seem > a bit more clear? ;-) TSP client should do it already for you. For the rest: google(openbsd rc.conf ipv6) eg http://schvin.net/writings/openbsd-ipv6.html http://www.fbunet.de/ipv6.shtml The latter being OpenBSD 3.5, just need to search correctly ;) As KAME (used on *BSD) is the most used IPv6 stack it really works. Or dump your route table + interfaces again and do the ping tests, on the IPv4 interface (fxp0) I mentioned. Greets, Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
