On 09/20/14 02:22, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
On 18-09-2014 13:57, James Hogarth wrote:
On 18 Sep 2014 09:07, "dE" <de.techno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 09/17/14 21:03, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
One more test. Please check sysctl -a | grep disable_ipv6 output
And if it's =1, set it to 0.
When NetworkManager is running, it may disable ipv6 on the
interface if
its not configured via NM...
Yes, that was it. Thanks!!
But this's the default? The installer should be checked for this.
The default is not to disable ipv6 so something in your environment
actively did this.
Well... NM needs to put the interface UP so it can reliably monitor
the link state. But that was turning ipv6 addr auto-config on and was
considered a security issue and thus NM started disabling ipv6 on such
(non-configured via NM but monitored) interface to avoid the address
auto-configuration from happening, yet causing this.
The fix (to be able to bring it up without ipv6 address autoconfig)
needed kernel & NM patches and show be available on 7.0.z very soon.
This does, however, leave me somewhat confused as to how you claimed
there
was a fc00::1001 address on there and you were adding the additional
address when you saw the refused message...
Such address was on the host, no?
Cheers,
Marcelo
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Ok, NM IS installed. My bad, I didn't realize.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
