Re: inet6 broken pretty badly in -current post 20080828

[Matthias Scheler <tron%zhadum.org.uk@localhost>]

On 31 Aug 2008, at 12:17, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
> somewhen between 20080809 and 20080828 inet6 broke thusly:
> - rtsol fails

I'm not using rtsol.

> - ping6 <linklocal-of-host> from another host on local link doesn't  
> work,
>  nor do connects to open tcp6 ports on linklocal.

I just tested IPv6 on two machines:
1.) Sun ULTRA60 with wm(4) interface running NetBSD/sparc64.
2.) HP Proliant ML110 G4 with a bge(4) interface running NetBSD/amd64.
Both machines run NetBSD 4.99.72 built from 2008-08-29 sources.

There are absolutely no problems on the ULTRA60.

IPv6 connections to the Proliant don't work unless the Proliant has sent
IPv6 packets to the remote host first:

1.) Power Mac G5 to Proliant:

tron@excalibur:~>ping6 fe80::21c:c4ff:fe5f:d9b%en0
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) fe80::216:cbff:fe37:999a%en0 -->  
fe80::21c:c4ff:fe5f:d9b%en0
^C
--- fe80::21c:c4ff:fe5f:d9b%en0 ping6 statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss

2.) Proliant to Power Mac G5:

tron@lyssa:~>ping6 fe80::216:cbff:fe37:999a%bge0
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) fe80::21c:c4ff:fe5f:d9b%bge0 -->  
fe80::216:cbff:fe37:999a%bge0
16 bytes from fe80::216:cbff:fe37:999a%bge0, icmp_seq=0 hlim=64  
time=0.657 ms
16 bytes from fe80::216:cbff:fe37:999a%bge0, icmp_seq=1 hlim=64  
time=0.406 ms
^C
--- fe80::216:cbff:fe37:999a%bge0 ping6 statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/std-dev = 0.406/0.532/0.657/0.177 ms

3.) Power Mac G5 to Proliant after (2):

tron@excalibur:~>ping6 fe80::21c:c4ff:fe5f:d9b%en0
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) fe80::216:cbff:fe37:999a%en0 -->  
fe80::21c:c4ff:fe5f:d9b%en0
16 bytes from fe80::21c:c4ff:fe5f:d9b%en0, icmp_seq=0 hlim=64  
time=0.578 ms
16 bytes from fe80::21c:c4ff:fe5f:d9b%en0, icmp_seq=1 hlim=64 time=0.5  
ms
^C
--- fe80::21c:c4ff:fe5f:d9b%en0 ping6 statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 0.500/0.539/0.578 ms

> Anyone have a bright idea?

Yes, it is a problem in bge(4) caused by this commit:

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes/2008/08/25/msg209337.html

After downgrading src/sys/dev/pci/if_bge.c to revision 1.150 I can no  
longer
reproduce the problem.

        Kind regards

--
Matthias Scheler                           http://zhadum.org.uk/