Mailing List Archive: Xen: Users

Does anybody here uses IPv6 for DomU?

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

carlos at ansp

Jul 18, 2012, 7:30 AM

Post #1 of 8 (642 views)
Permalink

Does anybody here uses IPv6 for DomU?

Hello all,

I am trying to do some tests with IPv6. I would like to configure a dual
stack for some services, such as DNS and Web Server.

First of all, to have IPv6 in DomU should I configure IPv6 in Dom0? I'm not
sure, but I dont think so, since from Dom0 using loopback address I can
ping the IPv6 address from my router.

Well, thinking that it is not mandatory, I configured an IPv6 address in
DomU:

# The primary network interface
auto eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 10.0.0.100
gateway 10.0.0.1
netmask 255.255.255.0
broadcast 10.0.0.255

iface eth0 inet6 static
address 2001:xxxx:xxxx::6
netmask 126
gateway 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5

But I cant ping the IPv6 address from my gateway. My routes seems to be OK.
Should I configure something else? I was looking in google and saw some
people saying about to check /etc/sysctl.conf, specially the line
"net.ipv6.conf.all.forwarding=1", but this dont did any difference.

I'm using these packets into a Debian Squeeze:

# dpkg -l | grep xen
ii libxenstore3.0 4.0.1-5.2
Xenstore communications library for Xen
ii linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 2.6.32-45 Linux
2.6.32 for 64-bit PCs, Xen dom0 support
ii xen-hypervisor-4.0-amd64 4.0.1-5.2 The
Xen Hypervisor on AMD64
ii xen-linux-system-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64 2.6.32-45 Xen
system with Linux 2.6.32 on 64-bit PCs (meta-package)
ii xen-tools 4.2-1 Tools
to manage Xen virtual servers
ii xen-utils-4.0 4.0.1-5.2 XEN
administrative tools
ii xen-utils-common 4.0.0-1 XEN
administrative tools - common files
ii xenstore-utils 4.0.1-5.2
Xenstore utilities for Xen

And my xend-config.sxp is set to use:

(network-script 'network-bridge antispoof=yes')
(vif-script vif-bridge)

I appreciate any help.

Regards,

-------------------------------
Carlos Eduardo Ribas

linux at thehobsons

Jul 18, 2012, 8:00 AM

Post #2 of 8 (611 views)
Permalink

Re: Does anybody here uses IPv6 for DomU? [In reply to]

Carlos Ribas wrote:

>I am trying to do some tests with IPv6. I would like to configure a
>dual stack for some services, such as DNS and Web Server.
>
>First of all, to have IPv6 in DomU should I configure IPv6 in Dom0?
>I'm not sure, but I dont think so, since from Dom0 using loopback
>address I can ping the IPv6 address from my router.

You don't need any address of Dom0 (I'm assuming you are using bridging ?)

I have one DomU running IPv6 for testing (DNS, Web server), Dom0 and
the rest of the network is IPv4 only - well as much as you can when
everything defaults to at least configuring link-local IPv6 addresses.

># The primary network interface
>auto eth0
>iface eth0 inet static
> address 10.0.0.100
> gateway 10.0.0.1
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> broadcast 10.0.0.255
>
>iface eth0 inet6 static
> address 2001:xxxx:xxxx::6
> netmask 126
> gateway 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5

That looks OK, I'm running a Hurricane Electric tunnel so mine looks different.

>But I cant ping the IPv6 address from my gateway. My routes seems to
>be OK. Should I configure something else? I was looking in google
>and saw some people saying about to check /etc/sysctl.conf,
>specially the line "net.ipv6.conf.all.forwarding=1", but this dont
>did any difference.

I have "post-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/forwarding" in
the IPv6 stanza in my /etc/network/interfaces. But that is only
needed to make the machine route packets between networks (ie act as
a router for other devices' traffic), it will still talk to other
devices without this.

>(network-script 'network-bridge antispoof=yes')
>(vif-script vif-bridge)

Standard advice now is not to use a network-script. It made sense a
while back, but the scripts are deprecated and the host OS generally
has better tools. For example, in Debian you can put something like
this in /etc/network/interfaces :
auto br0
iface br0 inet static
bridge_ports eth0
address a.b.c.d
netmask 255.255.255.0

One things I suggest it might be worth looking at is your subnet
mask. Try using 64 instead of 126 and see if it makes any difference.
While technically a 126 bit netmask ought to work on a P-P link, in
practice I believe there are a lot of things that break if you go
less than 64 bits for the host part of the address.

Also, "ip -6 neigh" will show you the known IPv6 neighbours (roughly
equivalent to ARP cache for Ipv4). That may help in debugging.

--
Simon Hobson

Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed
author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as
Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books.

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users [at] lists
http://lists.xen.org/xen-users

carlos at ansp

Jul 18, 2012, 8:48 AM

Post #3 of 8 (610 views)
Permalink

Re: Does anybody here uses IPv6 for DomU? [In reply to]

Hello Simon,

Yes, I'm using bridging. I put 126 as subnet mask because I configured a
P-P link. Unfortunately use 64 makes no difference. However, the command
you said showed me that something is wrong:

# ip -6 neigh
2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 dev eth0 FAILED
fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router STALE

I was cheking only with this command (and looking at red line, I thought
that it was all fine):

# route -A inet6
Kernel IPv6 routing table
Destination Next Hop Flag Met Ref Use
If
2001:xxxx:xxxx::4/126 :: Ue 256 0 4
eth0
fe80::/64 :: U 256 0 0
eth0
*::/0 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 UG 1 0 0
eth0*
::/0 fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 UGDAe 1024 0
0 eth0
::/0 :: !n -1 1 73
lo
::1/128 :: Un 0 1 23
lo
2001:xxxx:xxxx::6/128 :: Un 0 1 24
lo
fe80::216:3eff:fee2:3f3d/128 :: Un 0 1 0
lo
ff00::/8 :: U 256 0 0
eth0
::/0 :: !n -1 1 73
lo

I will investigate further more. Do you think there are something wrong
with "network-script" that can cause this? I hope not! :)

Thanks,

-------------------------------
Carlos Eduardo Ribas

2012/7/18 Simon Hobson <linux [at] thehobsons>

> Carlos Ribas wrote:
>
> I am trying to do some tests with IPv6. I would like to configure a dual
>> stack for some services, such as DNS and Web Server.
>>
>> First of all, to have IPv6 in DomU should I configure IPv6 in Dom0? I'm
>> not sure, but I dont think so, since from Dom0 using loopback address I can
>> ping the IPv6 address from my router.
>>
>
> You don't need any address of Dom0 (I'm assuming you are using bridging ?)
>
> I have one DomU running IPv6 for testing (DNS, Web server), Dom0 and the
> rest of the network is IPv4 only - well as much as you can when everything
> defaults to at least configuring link-local IPv6 addresses.
>
>
> # The primary network interface
>> auto eth0
>> iface eth0 inet static
>> address 10.0.0.100
>> gateway 10.0.0.1
>> netmask 255.255.255.0
>> broadcast 10.0.0.255
>>
>> iface eth0 inet6 static
>> address 2001:xxxx:xxxx::6
>> netmask 126
>> gateway 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5
>>
>
> That looks OK, I'm running a Hurricane Electric tunnel so mine looks
> different.
>
>
> But I cant ping the IPv6 address from my gateway. My routes seems to be
>> OK. Should I configure something else? I was looking in google and saw some
>> people saying about to check /etc/sysctl.conf, specially the line
>> "net.ipv6.conf.all.forwarding=**1", but this dont did any difference.
>>
>
> I have "post-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/**forwarding" in the
> IPv6 stanza in my /etc/network/interfaces. But that is only needed to make
> the machine route packets between networks (ie act as a router for other
> devices' traffic), it will still talk to other devices without this.
>
>
> (network-script 'network-bridge antispoof=yes')
>> (vif-script vif-bridge)
>>
>
> Standard advice now is not to use a network-script. It made sense a while
> back, but the scripts are deprecated and the host OS generally has better
> tools. For example, in Debian you can put something like this in
> /etc/network/interfaces :
> auto br0
> iface br0 inet static
> bridge_ports eth0
> address a.b.c.d
> netmask 255.255.255.0
>
> One things I suggest it might be worth looking at is your subnet mask. Try
> using 64 instead of 126 and see if it makes any difference. While
> technically a 126 bit netmask ought to work on a P-P link, in practice I
> believe there are a lot of things that break if you go less than 64 bits
> for the host part of the address.
>
> Also, "ip -6 neigh" will show you the known IPv6 neighbours (roughly
> equivalent to ARP cache for Ipv4). That may help in debugging.
>
> --
> Simon Hobson
>
> Visit http://www.**magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/<http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/>for books by acclaimed
> author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as
> Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books.
>

s.seitz at netzhaut

Jul 19, 2012, 4:49 AM

Post #4 of 8 (610 views)
Permalink

Re: Does anybody here uses IPv6 for DomU? [In reply to]

Hi,

as Simon already wrote, try to use your provisioned "regular" ipv6 net.
This is usally
a /48 or /64.

Our dom0 don't have ipv6 configured in any way, it's just enabled by
default.
Only the usual local-link (fe80...) addresses are bound to the
interfaces.
If you're using bridges (peth0 -> eth0 -> vifX.X), you don't have to
touch any
forwarding settings. It's "just working".

If you're using fixed addresses, don't forget to disable autoconf which
is default.
E.g. :
iface eth0 inet6 static
pre-up echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/eth0/autoconf
address ...

Am Mittwoch, den 18.07.2012, 12:48 -0300 schrieb Carlos Ribas:

> Hello Simon,
>
>
>
> Yes, I'm using bridging. I put 126 as subnet mask because I configured
> a P-P link. Unfortunately use 64 makes no difference. However, the
> command you said showed me that something is wrong:
>
>
> # ip -6 neigh
> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 dev eth0 FAILED
> fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router
> STALE
>
>
> I was cheking only with this command (and looking at red line, I
> thought that it was all fine):
>
>
> # route -A inet6
> Kernel IPv6 routing table
> Destination Next Hop Flag Met Ref
> Use If
> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::4/126 :: Ue 256 0
> 4 eth0
> fe80::/64 :: U 256 0
> 0 eth0
> ::/0 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 UG 1 0
> 0 eth0
> ::/0 fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 UGDAe 1024 0
> 0 eth0
> ::/0 :: !n -1 1
> 73 lo
> ::1/128 :: Un 0 1
> 23 lo
> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::6/128 :: Un 0 1
> 24 lo
> fe80::216:3eff:fee2:3f3d/128 :: Un 0 1
> 0 lo
> ff00::/8 :: U 256 0
> 0 eth0
> ::/0 :: !n -1 1
> 73 lo
>
>
> I will investigate further more. Do you think there are something
> wrong with "network-script" that can cause this? I hope not! :)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> -------------------------------
> Carlos Eduardo Ribas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2012/7/18 Simon Hobson <linux [at] thehobsons>
>
> Carlos Ribas wrote:
>
>
> I am trying to do some tests with IPv6. I would like
> to configure a dual stack for some services, such as
> DNS and Web Server.
>
> First of all, to have IPv6 in DomU should I configure
> IPv6 in Dom0? I'm not sure, but I dont think so, since
> from Dom0 using loopback address I can ping the IPv6
> address from my router.
>
>
>
>
> You don't need any address of Dom0 (I'm assuming you are using
> bridging ?)
>
> I have one DomU running IPv6 for testing (DNS, Web server),
> Dom0 and the rest of the network is IPv4 only - well as much
> as you can when everything defaults to at least configuring
> link-local IPv6 addresses.
>
>
>
>
> # The primary network interface
> auto eth0
> iface eth0 inet static
> address 10.0.0.100
> gateway 10.0.0.1
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> broadcast 10.0.0.255
>
> iface eth0 inet6 static
> address 2001:xxxx:xxxx::6
> netmask 126
> gateway 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5
>
>
>
>
> That looks OK, I'm running a Hurricane Electric tunnel so mine
> looks different.
>
>
>
>
> But I cant ping the IPv6 address from my gateway. My
> routes seems to be OK. Should I configure something
> else? I was looking in google and saw some people
> saying about to check /etc/sysctl.conf, specially the
> line "net.ipv6.conf.all.forwarding=1", but this dont
> did any difference.
>
>
>
>
> I have "post-up echo 1
> > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/forwarding" in the IPv6 stanza
> in my /etc/network/interfaces. But that is only needed to make
> the machine route packets between networks (ie act as a router
> for other devices' traffic), it will still talk to other
> devices without this.
>
>
>
>
> (network-script 'network-bridge antispoof=yes')
> (vif-script vif-bridge)
>
>
>
>
> Standard advice now is not to use a network-script. It made
> sense a while back, but the scripts are deprecated and the
> host OS generally has better tools. For example, in Debian you
> can put something like this in /etc/network/interfaces :
> auto br0
> iface br0 inet static
> bridge_ports eth0
> address a.b.c.d
> netmask 255.255.255.0
>
> One things I suggest it might be worth looking at is your
> subnet mask. Try using 64 instead of 126 and see if it makes
> any difference. While technically a 126 bit netmask ought to
> work on a P-P link, in practice I believe there are a lot of
> things that break if you go less than 64 bits for the host
> part of the address.
>
> Also, "ip -6 neigh" will show you the known IPv6 neighbours
> (roughly equivalent to ARP cache for Ipv4). That may help in
> debugging.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-users mailing list
> Xen-users [at] lists
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-users

Attachments:

signature.asc (0.48 KB)

carlos at ansp

Jul 19, 2012, 7:19 AM

Post #5 of 8 (609 views)
Permalink

Re: Does anybody here uses IPv6 for DomU? [In reply to]

Hello Stephan,

I tried to use my subnet, but didnt work. I tried to disable autoconf,
no success. I also tried to manually configure the forward in Dom0 using
"ip6tables -A FORWARD -s 2001:xxxx:xxxx::6 -m physdev --physdev-in vif21.0
-j ACCEPT" but once again, without success.

It's odd because if I try to ping the router from my DomU, it will not
work, and this is the output from "ip -6 neigh":

# ip -6 neigh
2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 dev eth0 FAILED
fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router STALE

From my router I can't ping my DomU, but then I got this message:

# ip -6 neigh
2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router REACHABLE
fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router REACHABLE

And then it changed to:

# ip -6 neigh
2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router STALE
fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router STALE

What seems to be ok, but it is not ok. Well, I'm still investigating.

Thank you for your help,

-------------------------------
Carlos Eduardo Ribas

2012/7/19 Stephan Seitz <s.seitz [at] netzhaut>

> **
> Hi,
>
> as Simon already wrote, try to use your provisioned "regular" ipv6 net.
> This is usally
> a /48 or /64.
>
> Our dom0 don't have ipv6 configured in any way, it's just enabled by
> default.
> Only the usual local-link (fe80...) addresses are bound to the interfaces.
> If you're using bridges (peth0 -> eth0 -> vifX.X), you don't have to touch
> any
> forwarding settings. It's "just working".
>
> If you're using fixed addresses, don't forget to disable autoconf which is
> default.
> E.g. :
> iface eth0 inet6 static
> pre-up echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/eth0/autoconf
> address ...
>
>
>
>
>
> Am Mittwoch, den 18.07.2012, 12:48 -0300 schrieb Carlos Ribas:
>
> Hello Simon,
>
>
>
> Yes, I'm using bridging. I put 126 as subnet mask because I configured a
> P-P link. Unfortunately use 64 makes no difference. However, the command
> you said showed me that something is wrong:
>
>
>
> # ip -6 neigh
>
> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 dev eth0 FAILED
>
> fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router STALE
>
>
>
> I was cheking only with this command (and looking at red line, I thought
> that it was all fine):
>
>
>
> # route -A inet6
>
> Kernel IPv6 routing table
>
> Destination Next Hop Flag Met Ref
> Use If
>
> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::4/126 :: Ue 256 0
> 4 eth0
>
> fe80::/64 :: U 256 0
> 0 eth0
>
> *::/0 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 UG 1 0
> 0 eth0*
>
> ::/0 fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 UGDAe 1024 0
> 0 eth0
>
> ::/0 :: !n -1 1
> 73 lo
>
> ::1/128 :: Un 0 1
> 23 lo
>
> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::6/128 :: Un 0 1
> 24 lo
>
> fe80::216:3eff:fee2:3f3d/128 :: Un 0 1
> 0 lo
>
> ff00::/8 :: U 256 0
> 0 eth0
>
> ::/0 :: !n -1 1
> 73 lo
>
>
>
> I will investigate further more. Do you think there are something wrong
> with "network-script" that can cause this? I hope not! :)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Carlos Eduardo Ribas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2012/7/18 Simon Hobson <linux [at] thehobsons>
>
> Carlos Ribas wrote:
>
> I am trying to do some tests with IPv6. I would like to configure a dual
> stack for some services, such as DNS and Web Server.
>
> First of all, to have IPv6 in DomU should I configure IPv6 in Dom0? I'm
> not sure, but I dont think so, since from Dom0 using loopback address I can
> ping the IPv6 address from my router.
>
>
>
> You don't need any address of Dom0 (I'm assuming you are using bridging
> ?)
>
> I have one DomU running IPv6 for testing (DNS, Web server), Dom0 and the
> rest of the network is IPv4 only - well as much as you can when everything
> defaults to at least configuring link-local IPv6 addresses.
>
>
>
> # The primary network interface
> auto eth0
> iface eth0 inet static
> address 10.0.0.100
> gateway 10.0.0.1
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> broadcast 10.0.0.255
>
> iface eth0 inet6 static
> address 2001:xxxx:xxxx::6
> netmask 126
> gateway 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5
>
>
>
> That looks OK, I'm running a Hurricane Electric tunnel so mine looks
> different.
>
>
>
> But I cant ping the IPv6 address from my gateway. My routes seems to be
> OK. Should I configure something else? I was looking in google and saw some
> people saying about to check /etc/sysctl.conf, specially the line
> "net.ipv6.conf.all.forwarding=1", but this dont did any difference.
>
>
>
> I have "post-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/forwarding" in the
> IPv6 stanza in my /etc/network/interfaces. But that is only needed to make
> the machine route packets between networks (ie act as a router for other
> devices' traffic), it will still talk to other devices without this.
>
>
>
> (network-script 'network-bridge antispoof=yes')
> (vif-script vif-bridge)
>
>
>
> Standard advice now is not to use a network-script. It made sense a
> while back, but the scripts are deprecated and the host OS generally has
> better tools. For example, in Debian you can put something like this in
> /etc/network/interfaces :
> auto br0
> iface br0 inet static
> bridge_ports eth0
> address a.b.c.d
> netmask 255.255.255.0
>
> One things I suggest it might be worth looking at is your subnet mask. Try
> using 64 instead of 126 and see if it makes any difference. While
> technically a 126 bit netmask ought to work on a P-P link, in practice I
> believe there are a lot of things that break if you go less than 64 bits
> for the host part of the address.
>
> Also, "ip -6 neigh" will show you the known IPv6 neighbours (roughly
> equivalent to ARP cache for Ipv4). That may help in debugging.
>
> _______________________________________________Xen-users mailing listXen-users [at] listshttp://lists.xen.org/xen-users
>
>

carlos at ansp

Jul 19, 2012, 7:49 AM

Post #6 of 8 (622 views)
Permalink

Re: Does anybody here uses IPv6 for DomU? [In reply to]

What let me crazy is that from Dom0 (with local-link) I can ping the router
and from DomU with static IP I can't!

Dom0:
# ping6 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5
PING 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5(2001:xxxx:xxxx::5) 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=4.56 ms
^C

DomU:
# ping6 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5
PING 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5(2001:xxxx:xxxx::5) 56 data bytes
^C
--- 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 ping statistics ---
5 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 3999ms

Regards,

-------------------------------
Carlos Eduardo Ribas

2012/7/19 Carlos Ribas <carlos [at] ansp>

> Hello Stephan,
>
> I tried to use my subnet, but didnt work. I tried to disable autoconf,
> no success. I also tried to manually configure the forward in Dom0 using
> "ip6tables -A FORWARD -s 2001:xxxx:xxxx::6 -m physdev --physdev-in vif21.0
> -j ACCEPT" but once again, without success.
>
> It's odd because if I try to ping the router from my DomU, it will not
> work, and this is the output from "ip -6 neigh":
>
> # ip -6 neigh
> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 dev eth0 FAILED
> fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router STALE
>
> From my router I can't ping my DomU, but then I got this message:
>
> # ip -6 neigh
> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router REACHABLE
> fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router REACHABLE
>
> And then it changed to:
>
> # ip -6 neigh
> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router STALE
> fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router STALE
>
> What seems to be ok, but it is not ok. Well, I'm still investigating.
>
> Thank you for your help,
>
> -------------------------------
> Carlos Eduardo Ribas
>
>
>
>
>
> 2012/7/19 Stephan Seitz <s.seitz [at] netzhaut>
>
>> **
>> Hi,
>>
>> as Simon already wrote, try to use your provisioned "regular" ipv6 net.
>> This is usally
>> a /48 or /64.
>>
>> Our dom0 don't have ipv6 configured in any way, it's just enabled by
>> default.
>> Only the usual local-link (fe80...) addresses are bound to the interfaces.
>> If you're using bridges (peth0 -> eth0 -> vifX.X), you don't have to
>> touch any
>> forwarding settings. It's "just working".
>>
>> If you're using fixed addresses, don't forget to disable autoconf which
>> is default.
>> E.g. :
>> iface eth0 inet6 static
>> pre-up echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/eth0/autoconf
>> address ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Am Mittwoch, den 18.07.2012, 12:48 -0300 schrieb Carlos Ribas:
>>
>> Hello Simon,
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, I'm using bridging. I put 126 as subnet mask because I configured
>> a P-P link. Unfortunately use 64 makes no difference. However, the command
>> you said showed me that something is wrong:
>>
>>
>>
>> # ip -6 neigh
>>
>> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 dev eth0 FAILED
>>
>> fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router STALE
>>
>>
>>
>> I was cheking only with this command (and looking at red line, I
>> thought that it was all fine):
>>
>>
>>
>> # route -A inet6
>>
>> Kernel IPv6 routing table
>>
>> Destination Next Hop Flag Met Ref
>> Use If
>>
>> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::4/126 :: Ue 256 0
>> 4 eth0
>>
>> fe80::/64 :: U 256 0
>> 0 eth0
>>
>> *::/0 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 UG 1 0
>> 0 eth0*
>>
>> ::/0 fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 UGDAe 1024 0
>> 0 eth0
>>
>> ::/0 :: !n -1 1
>> 73 lo
>>
>> ::1/128 :: Un 0 1
>> 23 lo
>>
>> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::6/128 :: Un 0 1
>> 24 lo
>>
>> fe80::216:3eff:fee2:3f3d/128 :: Un 0 1
>> 0 lo
>>
>> ff00::/8 :: U 256 0
>> 0 eth0
>>
>> ::/0 :: !n -1 1
>> 73 lo
>>
>>
>>
>> I will investigate further more. Do you think there are something wrong
>> with "network-script" that can cause this? I hope not! :)
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------
>>
>> Carlos Eduardo Ribas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/7/18 Simon Hobson <linux [at] thehobsons>
>>
>> Carlos Ribas wrote:
>>
>> I am trying to do some tests with IPv6. I would like to configure a dual
>> stack for some services, such as DNS and Web Server.
>>
>> First of all, to have IPv6 in DomU should I configure IPv6 in Dom0? I'm
>> not sure, but I dont think so, since from Dom0 using loopback address I can
>> ping the IPv6 address from my router.
>>
>>
>>
>> You don't need any address of Dom0 (I'm assuming you are using
>> bridging ?)
>>
>> I have one DomU running IPv6 for testing (DNS, Web server), Dom0 and the
>> rest of the network is IPv4 only - well as much as you can when everything
>> defaults to at least configuring link-local IPv6 addresses.
>>
>>
>>
>> # The primary network interface
>> auto eth0
>> iface eth0 inet static
>> address 10.0.0.100
>> gateway 10.0.0.1
>> netmask 255.255.255.0
>> broadcast 10.0.0.255
>>
>> iface eth0 inet6 static
>> address 2001:xxxx:xxxx::6
>> netmask 126
>> gateway 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5
>>
>>
>>
>> That looks OK, I'm running a Hurricane Electric tunnel so mine looks
>> different.
>>
>>
>>
>> But I cant ping the IPv6 address from my gateway. My routes seems to be
>> OK. Should I configure something else? I was looking in google and saw some
>> people saying about to check /etc/sysctl.conf, specially the line
>> "net.ipv6.conf.all.forwarding=1", but this dont did any difference.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have "post-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/forwarding" in
>> the IPv6 stanza in my /etc/network/interfaces. But that is only needed to
>> make the machine route packets between networks (ie act as a router for
>> other devices' traffic), it will still talk to other devices without this.
>>
>>
>>
>> (network-script 'network-bridge antispoof=yes')
>> (vif-script vif-bridge)
>>
>>
>>
>> Standard advice now is not to use a network-script. It made sense a
>> while back, but the scripts are deprecated and the host OS generally has
>> better tools. For example, in Debian you can put something like this in
>> /etc/network/interfaces :
>> auto br0
>> iface br0 inet static
>> bridge_ports eth0
>> address a.b.c.d
>> netmask 255.255.255.0
>>
>> One things I suggest it might be worth looking at is your subnet mask.
>> Try using 64 instead of 126 and see if it makes any difference. While
>> technically a 126 bit netmask ought to work on a P-P link, in practice I
>> believe there are a lot of things that break if you go less than 64 bits
>> for the host part of the address.
>>
>> Also, "ip -6 neigh" will show you the known IPv6 neighbours (roughly
>> equivalent to ARP cache for Ipv4). That may help in debugging.
>>
>> _______________________________________________Xen-users mailing listXen-users [at] listshttp://lists.xen.org/xen-users
>>
>>
>

carlos at ansp

Jul 19, 2012, 10:40 AM

Post #7 of 8 (612 views)
Permalink

Re: Does anybody here uses IPv6 for DomU? [In reply to]

Can someone put here the output from the command "ip6tables -L -n" from
Dom0?

Thanks,

-------------------------------
Carlos Eduardo Ribas

2012/7/19 Carlos Ribas <carlos [at] ansp>

> What let me crazy is that from Dom0 (with local-link) I can ping the
> router and from DomU with static IP I can't!
>
> Dom0:
> # ping6 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5
> PING 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5(2001:xxxx:xxxx::5) 56 data bytes
> 64 bytes from 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=4.56 ms
> ^C
>
> DomU:
> # ping6 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5
> PING 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5(2001:xxxx:xxxx::5) 56 data bytes
> ^C
> --- 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 ping statistics ---
> 5 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 3999ms
>
> Regards,
>
> -------------------------------
> Carlos Eduardo Ribas
>
>
>
>
>
> 2012/7/19 Carlos Ribas <carlos [at] ansp>
>
>> Hello Stephan,
>>
>> I tried to use my subnet, but didnt work. I tried to disable
>> autoconf, no success. I also tried to manually configure the forward in
>> Dom0 using "ip6tables -A FORWARD -s 2001:xxxx:xxxx::6 -m physdev
>> --physdev-in vif21.0 -j ACCEPT" but once again, without success.
>>
>> It's odd because if I try to ping the router from my DomU, it will
>> not work, and this is the output from "ip -6 neigh":
>>
>> # ip -6 neigh
>> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 dev eth0 FAILED
>> fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router STALE
>>
>> From my router I can't ping my DomU, but then I got this message:
>>
>> # ip -6 neigh
>> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router REACHABLE
>> fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router
>> REACHABLE
>>
>> And then it changed to:
>>
>> # ip -6 neigh
>> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router STALE
>> fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router STALE
>>
>> What seems to be ok, but it is not ok. Well, I'm still investigating.
>>
>> Thank you for your help,
>>
>> -------------------------------
>> Carlos Eduardo Ribas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/7/19 Stephan Seitz <s.seitz [at] netzhaut>
>>
>>> **
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> as Simon already wrote, try to use your provisioned "regular" ipv6 net.
>>> This is usally
>>> a /48 or /64.
>>>
>>> Our dom0 don't have ipv6 configured in any way, it's just enabled by
>>> default.
>>> Only the usual local-link (fe80...) addresses are bound to the
>>> interfaces.
>>> If you're using bridges (peth0 -> eth0 -> vifX.X), you don't have to
>>> touch any
>>> forwarding settings. It's "just working".
>>>
>>> If you're using fixed addresses, don't forget to disable autoconf which
>>> is default.
>>> E.g. :
>>> iface eth0 inet6 static
>>> pre-up echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/eth0/autoconf
>>> address ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am Mittwoch, den 18.07.2012, 12:48 -0300 schrieb Carlos Ribas:
>>>
>>> Hello Simon,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm using bridging. I put 126 as subnet mask because I configured
>>> a P-P link. Unfortunately use 64 makes no difference. However, the command
>>> you said showed me that something is wrong:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> # ip -6 neigh
>>>
>>> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 dev eth0 FAILED
>>>
>>> fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 dev eth0 lladdr 00:24:38:c9:8b:00 router STALE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I was cheking only with this command (and looking at red line, I
>>> thought that it was all fine):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> # route -A inet6
>>>
>>> Kernel IPv6 routing table
>>>
>>> Destination Next Hop Flag Met Ref
>>> Use If
>>>
>>> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::4/126 :: Ue 256 0
>>> 4 eth0
>>>
>>> fe80::/64 :: U 256 0
>>> 0 eth0
>>>
>>> *::/0 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5 UG 1 0
>>> 0 eth0*
>>>
>>> ::/0 fe80::224:38ff:fec9:8b00 UGDAe 1024 0
>>> 0 eth0
>>>
>>> ::/0 :: !n -1 1
>>> 73 lo
>>>
>>> ::1/128 :: Un 0 1
>>> 23 lo
>>>
>>> 2001:xxxx:xxxx::6/128 :: Un 0 1
>>> 24 lo
>>>
>>> fe80::216:3eff:fee2:3f3d/128 :: Un 0 1
>>> 0 lo
>>>
>>> ff00::/8 :: U 256 0
>>> 0 eth0
>>>
>>> ::/0 :: !n -1 1
>>> 73 lo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I will investigate further more. Do you think there are something
>>> wrong with "network-script" that can cause this? I hope not! :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------------------------
>>>
>>> Carlos Eduardo Ribas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/7/18 Simon Hobson <linux [at] thehobsons>
>>>
>>> Carlos Ribas wrote:
>>>
>>> I am trying to do some tests with IPv6. I would like to configure a
>>> dual stack for some services, such as DNS and Web Server.
>>>
>>> First of all, to have IPv6 in DomU should I configure IPv6 in Dom0? I'm
>>> not sure, but I dont think so, since from Dom0 using loopback address I can
>>> ping the IPv6 address from my router.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't need any address of Dom0 (I'm assuming you are using
>>> bridging ?)
>>>
>>> I have one DomU running IPv6 for testing (DNS, Web server), Dom0 and the
>>> rest of the network is IPv4 only - well as much as you can when everything
>>> defaults to at least configuring link-local IPv6 addresses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> # The primary network interface
>>> auto eth0
>>> iface eth0 inet static
>>> address 10.0.0.100
>>> gateway 10.0.0.1
>>> netmask 255.255.255.0
>>> broadcast 10.0.0.255
>>>
>>> iface eth0 inet6 static
>>> address 2001:xxxx:xxxx::6
>>> netmask 126
>>> gateway 2001:xxxx:xxxx::5
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That looks OK, I'm running a Hurricane Electric tunnel so mine looks
>>> different.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But I cant ping the IPv6 address from my gateway. My routes seems to be
>>> OK. Should I configure something else? I was looking in google and saw some
>>> people saying about to check /etc/sysctl.conf, specially the line
>>> "net.ipv6.conf.all.forwarding=1", but this dont did any difference.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have "post-up echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/forwarding" in
>>> the IPv6 stanza in my /etc/network/interfaces. But that is only needed to
>>> make the machine route packets between networks (ie act as a router for
>>> other devices' traffic), it will still talk to other devices without this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (network-script 'network-bridge antispoof=yes')
>>> (vif-script vif-bridge)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Standard advice now is not to use a network-script. It made sense a
>>> while back, but the scripts are deprecated and the host OS generally has
>>> better tools. For example, in Debian you can put something like this in
>>> /etc/network/interfaces :
>>> auto br0
>>> iface br0 inet static
>>> bridge_ports eth0
>>> address a.b.c.d
>>> netmask 255.255.255.0
>>>
>>> One things I suggest it might be worth looking at is your subnet mask.
>>> Try using 64 instead of 126 and see if it makes any difference. While
>>> technically a 126 bit netmask ought to work on a P-P link, in practice I
>>> believe there are a lot of things that break if you go less than 64 bits
>>> for the host part of the address.
>>>
>>> Also, "ip -6 neigh" will show you the known IPv6 neighbours (roughly
>>> equivalent to ARP cache for Ipv4). That may help in debugging.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________Xen-users mailing listXen-users [at] listshttp://lists.xen.org/xen-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>

lsc at prgmr

Jul 28, 2012, 6:54 PM

Post #8 of 8 (560 views)
Permalink

Re: Does anybody here uses IPv6 for DomU? [In reply to]

I dono if my problem is the same as yours, but I had a problem where
the linux bridge was not passing multicast (x3:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx) packets.

http://wiki.prgmr.com/mediawiki/index.php/20120626_troubleshooting_ipv6

#cat /sys/class/net/vif0.0/brport/multicast_router
1
# echo "2">/sys/class/net/vif0.0/brport/multicast_router

essentially, I did this for all ports on the bridge, and it seemed
to have worked.

Sorry the documentation is absolutely horrible. I haven't had time
to sort it out and properly test it.

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users [at] lists
http://lists.xen.org/xen-users

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads