[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Solved/is it a RC bug?] Re: Configuring both ipv4 and ipv6 with ifupdown



Hi,

On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 06:10:22PM +0100, Frederic Lehobey wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 04:34:19PM +0000, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > Frederic Lehobey wrote:
> 
> > > In sarge, the following /etc/network/interfaces configuration used to
> > > work:

(update: with a
	pre-up modprobe ipv6
stated earlier in other interfaces' definitions)

> > > ----
> > > auto eth0
> > > iface eth0 inet static
> > >         address 192.168.0.1
> > >         netmask 255.255.255.0
> > > 
> > > iface eth0 inet6 static
> > >         address 2002:some:addr::1
> > >         netmask 64
> > 
> > I have a couple of hosts where that works perfectly well with separate
> > 'iface eth0 inet...' and 'iface eth0 inet6...' lines.
> 
> OK (I understand them to be running etch). Thanks.

> substitute for a reboot (but the problem shows up too at reboot with
> the IPv6 address not being enabled).

Yes, but the real cause of the problem is (with a standard etch
installation and kernel) that at the time the ipv6 interface is
brought up, the ipv6 module is not yet loaded in the kernel (it seems
to be loaded *later* in the boot sequence).

The error message I see after (with invoke-rc.d networking restart)
seems to be only a consequence of the original failure.

> I have actually workarounds with
> 	up ifconfig eth0 inet6 add 2001:...
> or
> 	up ip -6 ...
> but I would prefer (with respect to bug reporting) understand the real
> cause of the problem.

These two ideas are NOT working workarounds. The real workaround I
have found so far has been to put a

	pre-up modprobe ipv6

in interface eth0 definition. There might be other possible
workarounds.

I am still puzzled with what I should do with respect to this
problem. Is it a bug for the kernel? For ifupdown? Or for 'general'?
(If I do not mistake, ipv6 is a release goal.) (And the problem is not
new as it was the same in sarge actually.)

Thanks,
Frédéric



Reply to: