On 13 August 2012 20:37, Alan Batie <alan@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I found another CentOS 6 system that not only is talking ipv6 properly,
> but the test system that can't even talk to the router can talk to it.
> That indicates it's probably something wonky with the network itself...
>
Hmm...
I don't have a C6 ipv6 machine but I do have a F17 which might not be
too far off in behaviour...
The general recommendation though is that next hop should always be
via the local link FE80:: addresses (I notice your public address for
gateway there)...
Don't worry about the error -101 - the actual error is the unreachable
bit and just says that those networks can't be reached over the lo
device - which is understandable...
Here's a look at my F17 server for comparison:
ip -6 r s
2001:0:4137:9e76:24f8:3b1a:2598:7928 via fe80::e291:f5ff:fecc:7919 dev
em1 metric 0
cache
2001:0:9d38:953c:2805:3e4f:484e:6234 via fe80::e291:f5ff:fecc:7919 dev
em1 metric 0
cache
2001:0:9d38:953c:344a:332e:37f7:24f7 via fe80::e291:f5ff:fecc:7919 dev
em1 metric 0
cache
2001:470:97df:1::/64 dev em1 proto kernel metric 256 expires 85879sec
unreachable fe80::/64 dev lo proto kernel metric 256 error -101
fe80::/64 dev em1 proto kernel metric 256
default via fe80::e291:f5ff:fecc:7919 dev em1 proto kernel metric
1024 expires 1305sec
I'm using radvd on my network ... but things shouldn't be too far off
for static settings...
Is the other C6 system that *is* working on the same vmware server,
bare metal or on another virtualization server?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
