 graysonfPremium,MVM join:1999-07-16 Fort Lauderdale, FL | reply to camper
Re: Odd log message LOL.
I disabled IPv6 for now. It's not like I had to have it. |
|
 camperPremium join:2010-03-21 Bethel, CT |   I just checked OpenBSD's version control system, and that logging line has been in rtadvd since it was imported from the KAME project in 1999. |
|
|
|
 NetDogPremium,VIP join:2002-03-04 Parker, CO kudos:3 | reply to camper camper, I will take a look at the CMTS that services your area in the AM.. If I see something odd I will PM you.. |
|
 camperPremium join:2010-03-21 Bethel, CT | thx. |
|
 camperPremium join:2010-03-21 Bethel, CT Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to graysonf
said by graysonf:fe80::1edf:fff:fe02:28e2 is a local link address somewhere.
I don't see the offending address in my routing table either....   When I set net.inet6.ip6.accept_rtadv=1 in /etc/sysctl.conf, I see the following entry in the routing table: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Mtu Prio Iface Label fe80::1edf:fff:fe02:28e2%em0 1c:df:0f:02:28:e2 UHLc 0 0 - 4 em0
So the rtavd message is inserting a route into the routing table here. Which, btw, is not surprising. This is the way things should work. |
|
 graysonfPremium,MVM join:1999-07-16 Fort Lauderdale, FL | said by camper:So the rtavd message is inserting a route into the routing table here. Which, btw, is not surprising. This is the way things should work. How does this explain the log flooding and how can I get it stopped? |
|
 camperPremium join:2010-03-21 Bethel, CT Reviews:
·Comcast
| My opinion on the log flooding is that the OS is logging things that it should not be logging. From the source code of rtadvd on OpenBSD:
/* * RA consistency check according to RFC-2461 6.2.7 */ if ((rai = if_indextorainfo(pi->ipi6_ifindex)) == 0) { log_info("received RA from %s on non-advertising interface(%s)", inet_ntop(AF_INET6, &from->sin6_addr, ntopbuf, INET6_ADDRSTRLEN), if_indextoname(pi->ipi6_ifindex, ifnamebuf)); goto done; }
If you look at the RFC specified ( RFC-2461, ¶ 6.2.7), it appears to me that it is talking about the contents of RA packets, not whether or not those packets appear on an interface. So, imo, the logging of the packets is overly aggressive. As I mentioned in an earlier message, that piece of code goes back to the original KAME project. The code may have never been touched because, until recently, there not has been a major ISP that is providing dual-stack IPv6 capability. |
|
 graysonfPremium,MVM join:1999-07-16 Fort Lauderdale, FL | Thanks for the info on this. I will pass it onto the m0n0wall developers. |
|
 NetDogPremium,VIP join:2002-03-04 Parker, CO kudos:3 Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to camper said by camper:My opinion on the log flooding is that the OS is logging things that it should not be logging.
If you look at the RFC specified (RFC-2461, ¶ 6.2.7), it appears to me that it is talking about the contents of RA packets, not whether or not those packets appear on an interface. So, imo, the logging of the packets is overly aggressive. +1, I agree.. -- Comcaster.. Network Engineer with NETO |
|