PR 1.5 https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/2750
PR 1.4 https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/2751
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
All Stories
Jan 4 2024
Still issue persists when u create a new install its fine but upgrading breaks dhcp server ,tried in latest rolling releases 😢 why no solution??? YET...........
@dmbaturin @c-po can you see this and tell me if it's still current
Jan 3 2024
OK, local-route actually worked!
Thanks!
The same issue could be with any dynamic interface like PPP that could be don't exists during the boot process/ISP issues
Which version?
Just a heads up that the above script can potentially destroy the config on boot, because if the system is fast enough, the hook will run before the boot config has finished loading. This will result either in an error when commiting because the config is locked (good outcome), or the config not being loaded at all (bad outcome). I've changed it a bit to actually wait for the boot config to load and now it runs safer, but it's still a bit janky in my opinion, I'm still hoping we can get something that works in-system for this case
PR submitted: https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/2746
If I connect to the router and issue the commands
Jan 2 2024
PR for 1.4 sagitta https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/2732
PR for 1.4 sagitta https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/2732
Jan 1 2024
What I noticed is whenever you update rolling versions it breaks dhcp ,but when you make a new install it is fine.
Just to report back
Sorry maybe I’m not understanding you. The address you’ve highlighted isn’t valid in any case (it only has 6 segments). At the very best it should look like 2602:fcad:2:fffe:5054:ff:XXXX:XXXX (with eight segments). 2602:fcad:2:fffe::/64 is a valid prefix on our network, but there would need to be another 4 segments at the end for SLAAC assigned addresses (which is how that particular address is being assigned). I’d need to look deeper into what the correct address should be, which is why we provided the iperf3 example given the shorter / defined host addresses (with the hope that someone else smarter than me might see the pattern of how the addresses are being mangled). Thanks.
Yes but "2602:fcad:2:fffe:5054:ff" is a valid host in your case?
Hmm, I also just realized the SRC_PORT and DST_PORT are 0 in both the IPv4 and IPv6 flows (also seen in the first example).
No -- I don't believe that's a valid IPv6 address. We just ran some iperf3 tests between two servers on our network 2602:fcad:1::12 <-> 2602:fcad:1:ffff::ffff. Here's what showed up in nfdump (our Netflow collector). I'm not seeing an obvious pattern on how the addresses are being mangled.
Dec 31 2023
You mean that for SRC_IP you expect it to be "2602:fcad:2:fffe:5054:ff" and not "14d:63f:2602:fcad:2:fffe:5054:ff" ?
Related to the list provided in https://vyos.dev/T5706 ?
Dec 30 2023
It is more of a question for Jool.
Or you can use a range of required ports that aren't used by the system
I've tinkered with this a bit , but a problem I have is that I need multiple ip addresses on the outgoing interface(s). I understand that Jool takes all ports, so It's needed for everything to work properly.
On my own WAN interface, this is not a problem, I can just assign another ip from my ISP.
PR https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/2724
vyos@r4:~$ add system image latest
Removing 1.3 backport as it's not trivial. Implementation depends on python3-pyhump (not available and must be self build) and also on vyos.opmode framework which does not exist for 1.3 equuleus