From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265091AbUF1RF0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:05:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265093AbUF1RF0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:05:26 -0400 Received: from [203.178.140.15] ([203.178.140.15]:42249 "EHLO yue.st-paulia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265091AbUF1RFT (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:05:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:06:27 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20040629.020627.76560474.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> To: rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org Subject: Re: 2.6.6: IPv6 initialisation bug From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?= In-Reply-To: <20040628010200.A15067@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20040628010200.A15067@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Organization: USAGI Project X-URL: http://www.yoshifuji.org/%7Ehideaki/ X-Fingerprint: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA X-PGP-Key-URL: http://www.yoshifuji.org/%7Ehideaki/hideaki@yoshifuji.org.asc X-Face: "5$Al-.M>NJ%a'@hhZdQm:."qn~PA^gq4o*>iCFToq*bAi#4FRtx}enhuQKz7fNqQz\BYU] $~O_5m-9'}MIs`XGwIEscw;e5b>n"B_?j/AkL~i/MEaZBLP X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 20.7 / Mule 4.1 (AOI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <20040628010200.A15067@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (at Mon, 28 Jun 2004 01:02:01 +0100), Russell King says: > Ok, I've just tried 2.6.7 out on my root-NFS'd firewall with IPv6 built > in, and it doesn't work because of the problem I described below. : > What's the solution? Bring lo up before bring others up. What does prevent you from doing this? (Do we need some bits to do this automatically?) > Is there a good reason why IPv6 uses the loopback device for local > routes? IPv6 creates kernel routes for local addresses on lo to receive packets for local address. Well, someone probably wants to have static local routes on ethX + temprary (cache) local routes on lo (as IPv4 does; correct me if I'm wrong.) But this won't work because IPv6 does DAD when we make some interface up. We need lo anyway. --yoshfuji