[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110429080916.GB11260@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:09:16 +0200
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Daniel Walter <sahne@...0.at>
Subject: IPv6 PREFSRC behaves different than IPv4 PREFSRC?
I tested todays net-next and tried to use the new ipv6 prefsrc
patch that went in this month.
But as far as I can say it does not work, or at least
the behaviour I see is unexpected.
Test setup:
eth0 has addresses 192.168.10.100/24 and dead:1::100/64
With IPv4,
I get this behaviour:
$ ip addr add 192.168.10.101 dev eth0
$ ip route get 192.168.10.1
192.168.10.1 dev eth0 src 192.168.10.100
cache
$ ip route add 192.168.10.1 src 192.168.10.101 dev eth0
$ ip route get 192.168.10.1
192.168.10.1 dev eth0 src 192.168.10.101
cache
$ ip route get 192.168.10.2
192.168.10.2 dev eth0 src 192.168.10.100
cache
And that is what I would have expected... But with ipv6 the behaviour
differs:
ipv6
$ ip route get dead:1::1
dead:1::1 via dead:1::1 dev eth0 src dead:1::100 metric 0
cache
$ ip addr add dead:1::101/64 dev eth0
$ ip route add dead:1::1 src dead:1::101
$ ip route get dead:1::1
dead:1::1 via dead:1::1 dev eth0 src dead:1::101 metric 0
cache
$ ip route add dead:1::2 src dead:1::100
$ ip route get dead:1::2
dead:1::2 via dead:1::2 dev eth0 src dead:1::101 metric 0
-> src is dead:1:101, and not 100 as I had expected...
This behaviour is rather irritating.
What am I doing wrong?
Thanks,
Florian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists