Re: Strange IPv6 Routing Behaviour[LONG]
In article <[🔎] 20020608194512.GA723@g7iii.demon.co.uk> (at Sat, 8 Jun 2002 20:45:12 +0100), Iain Young <iain@g7iii.demon.co.uk> says:
> My IPv6 network looks like this:
>
> |------------------------------------------------------------------| BGP 64512
> | |
> |bond0(fec0::1:203:baff:fe04:ee5f/64) |eth0(fec0::1:210:5aff:fe2e:fad8/64)
> columbia pathfinder
> |tap0(fec0::7000:fefd:0:0:2/64)
> |
> |eth0(fec0::7000:fefd:0:0:1/64)
> iii-gw1
> |eth1(fec0::7800:fefd:0:0:2/64)
> |
> |eth0(fec0::7800:fcfd:aff:fe0b:cd04/64)
> ldap
:
> What ldap can't do is tracepath6 to is the eth0 of pathfinder,
> or to columbia (bond0). It dies with a !H (Host Unreachable):
:
> iii-gw1:
>
> iii-gw1> sh ipv6 route
> Codes: K - kernel route, C - connected, S - static, R - RIPng, O - OSPFv3,
> B - BGP, * - FIB route.
>
> B>* ::/0 [20/0] via fe80::2ff:34ff:fef3:8b2f, eth0, 01:04:18
> C>* ::1/128 is directly connected, lo
> C>* 2001:618:406:7000::/64 is directly connected, eth0
> O 2001:618:406:7800::/64 [110/0] is directly connected, eth1, 00:33:25
> C>* 2001:618:406:7800::/64 is directly connected, eth1
> C>* fe80::/10 is directly connected, dummy0
> C * fe80::/10 is directly connected, eth1
> C * fe80::/10 is directly connected, eth0
> C>* fec0:0:0:7000::/64 is directly connected, eth0
> O fec0:0:0:7800::/64 [110/0] is directly connected, eth1, 00:33:25
> C>* fec0:0:0:7800::/64 is directly connected, eth1
> Does anyone have any idea as to why I seem to be unable to route
> across my 'backbone' ? Or even up to eth0 of pathfinder ? I also have
> 2001 addresses as well, and the behaviour is identical.
(Mainline) linux kernel does not support default route on router,
whose forwarding is enabled.
Apply USAGI <http://www.linux-ipv6.org> patch and enable
CONFIG_IPV6_EN_DFLT.
--
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ipv6-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: