PR for 1.4 sagitta https://github.com/vyos/vyos-1x/pull/2732
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
All Stories
Jan 2 2024
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 ?