From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de [141.3.10.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21834201A56; Mon, 9 May 2011 07:42:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i72vorta.tm.uni-karlsruhe.de ([141.3.71.26] helo=vorta.tm.kit.edu) by iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de with esmtp port 25 id 1QJRlf-0002X2-NC; Mon, 09 May 2011 16:49:12 +0200 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by vorta.tm.kit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 670A542C; Mon, 9 May 2011 16:49:03 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4DC7FEDF.3030005@kit.edu> Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 16:49:03 +0200 From: Roland Bless Organization: Institute of Telematics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Taht References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ATIS-AV: ClamAV (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-AV: Kaspersky (iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de) X-ATIS-Timestamp: iramx2.ira.uni-karlsruhe.de 1304952553.026040000 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 09 May 2011 07:45:31 -0700 Cc: bismark-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net, bloat Subject: Re: [Bismark-devel] [Bloat] ipv6 fe80:: addresses, vlans and bridges... borked? X-BeenThere: bismark-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: BISMark related software development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 14:42:53 -0000 Hi Dave, On 09.05.2011 05:26, Dave Taht wrote: > I am modestly stumped as to how to solve this properly. I think it's > been causing problems with ipv6 for a long time, but I could be wrong. > > see http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/126 > > Basically although the underlying interfaces do have unique mac > addresses (for some reason the underlying eth0 interface is sharing a > mac address with the wlan0 interface??), > the bridged to a vlan fe80:: addresses are all the same. This strikes me > as a problem. It seems that in these cases the ether/link address is also the same, therefore the interfaces configure all the same link-local address. Link local addresses are only unique with respect to their link, i.e., usually you have to specify the interface in addition to the fe80::/64 destination address, e.g., ping6 fe80::c63d:c7ff:fe8b:6e1a%vlan1 > Is there a standard for renaming fe80:: addresses to represent they are > interfacing with different vlans? Maybe that's the wrong question. What is the problem you are trying to solve? Maybe link local addresses are not the right tool... Regards, Roland