[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1378991941.1531.5.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.level5networks.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:19:01 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
To: James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
CC: Jeff Loughridge <jeffl@...mni.duke.edu>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ip l2tp - suspected defect using IPv6 local/remote addresses
On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 11:20 +0100, James Chapman wrote:
> On 11 September 2013 19:52, Jeff Loughridge <jeffl@...mni.duke.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Using IPv6 address as L2TPv3 endpoints doesn't seem to work in
> > iproute2 3.11. I see a cosmetic defect in the output of 'ip l2tp show
> > tunnel'. In addition, I can't get tunnels to function with UDP or IP
> > encapsulation.
> >
> > root@...ian:~# ip l2tp add tunnel tunnel_id 3000 peer_tunnel_id 4000
> > encap udp local a::1 remote a::2 udp_sport 5000 udp_dport 6000
> > root@...ian:~# ip l2tp add session tunnel_id 3000 session_id 1000
> > peer_session_id 2000
> > root@...ian:~# ip l2tp show tunnel
> > Tunnel 3000, encap UDP
> > From 127.0.0.1 to 127.0.0.1
> > Peer tunnel 4000
> > UDP source / dest ports: 5000/6000
> > root@...ian:~#
>
> You'll need a 3.5 or later kernel for L2TP over IPv6. I see you are
> using 3.2. Are you using a version of iproute2 which is not matched to
> your kernel?
[...]
The iproute2 version number only indicates which kernel features it
supports; it is supposed to be backward-compatible. And it really
should not silently fail like this, although this may well be a bug in
the API that can't be fixed in userland...
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
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