2002-02-04 07:29:57

by Sten Spans

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: IPv6 Sparc64


I have been trying to get ipv6 to work
on sparc64/kernel 2.4 but it looks like it
is broken somewhere in the kernel.
I was wondering if this was a known problem.


lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:84 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:84 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:8736 (8.5 Kb) TX bytes:8736 (8.5 Kb)

[root@towel ip]# ping6 ::1
PING ::1(::1) from ::1 : 56 data bytes


--
Sten Spans

"What does one do with ones money,
when there is no more empty rackspace ?"


2002-02-04 09:06:26

by Jochen Friedrich

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: IPv6 Sparc64

Hi Sten,

> I have been trying to get ipv6 to work
> on sparc64/kernel 2.4 but it looks like it
> is broken somewhere in the kernel.
> I was wondering if this was a known problem.

> [root@towel ip]# ping6 ::1
> PING ::1(::1) from ::1 : 56 data bytes

It's the same on PARISC. However, on PARISC, although ping6 doesn't work,
telnet etc do work, as well as pinging the PARISC box from an Intel or
Alpha machine.

For now, i assume there might be an endianess issue in net/ipv6/raw.c
somewhere... Has anyone tested IPv6 on m68k?

Cheers,
Jochen

2002-02-04 10:51:27

by Sten Spans

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: IPv6 Sparc64

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Jochen Friedrich wrote:

> > I have been trying to get ipv6 to work
> > on sparc64/kernel 2.4 but it looks like it
> > is broken somewhere in the kernel.
> > I was wondering if this was a known problem.
>
> > [root@towel ip]# ping6 ::1
> > PING ::1(::1) from ::1 : 56 data bytes
>
> It's the same on PARISC. However, on PARISC, although ping6 doesn't work,
> telnet etc do work, as well as pinging the PARISC box from an Intel or
> Alpha machine.

The reason I ask this is because I have been trying to setup a
tunnel, and I cant get it to work either with ifconfig or iproute.

[root@towel ip]# ip tunnel add blink mode sit remote x.x.x.x dev
eth0
ioctl: Invalid argument

--
Sten Spans

"What does one do with ones money,
when there is no more empty rackspace ?"

2002-02-17 16:31:30

by Jochen Friedrich

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Re: IPv6 Sparc64

Hi Sten,

On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Sten wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
>
> > > I have been trying to get ipv6 to work
> > > on sparc64/kernel 2.4 but it looks like it
> > > is broken somewhere in the kernel.
> > > I was wondering if this was a known problem.
> >
> > > [root@towel ip]# ping6 ::1
> > > PING ::1(::1) from ::1 : 56 data bytes
> >
> > It's the same on PARISC. However, on PARISC, although ping6 doesn't work,
> > telnet etc do work, as well as pinging the PARISC box from an Intel or
> > Alpha machine.
>
> The reason I ask this is because I have been trying to setup a
> tunnel, and I cant get it to work either with ifconfig or iproute.
>
> [root@towel ip]# ip tunnel add blink mode sit remote x.x.x.x dev
> eth0
> ioctl: Invalid argument

At least on PARISC, this turned out to be an glibc issue. With the latest
glibc from debian unstable, ping6 is now working OK:

# ping6 -n http://www.kame.net
PING http://www.kame.net(3ffe:501:4819:2000:203:47ff:fea5:3257) from
3ffe:400:470:4:a00:9ff:fe17:ca3d : 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 3ffe:501:4819:2000:203:47ff:fea5:3257: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53
time=592
ms
64 bytes from 3ffe:501:4819:2000:203:47ff:fea5:3257: icmp_seq=2 ttl=53
time=609
ms

--- http://www.kame.net ping statistics ---
3 packets transmitted, 2 received, 33% loss, time 2022ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 592.367/601.114/609.862/8.781 ms

Cheers,
Jochen

2002-03-05 12:38:52

by David Miller

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: IPv6 Sparc64

From: Sten <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 11:58:10 +0100 (CET)

The reason I ask this is because I have been trying to setup a
tunnel, and I cant get it to work either with ifconfig or iproute.

[root@towel ip]# ip tunnel add blink mode sit remote x.x.x.x dev
eth0
ioctl: Invalid argument

The reason this fails is because SIOCADDTUNNEL uses SIOCDEVPRIVATE
which can't be translated properly to/from 32-bit apps running
on 64-bit kernels.