Re: NFS over IPv6

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Jun Kuriyama wrote:

> With today's kernel, I see strange behavior with NFS over IPv6.  My
> userland is two days older.  I'll check with sync'ed kernel/userland
> tomorrow. 

Is there any chance you can track down a threshold date for the problem
appearing?  I did recently make some changes to NFS, but I wouldn't think
those would be related to the problem you're experiencing.  It looks like
you are seeing IPv6 fragmentation, however -- maybe we're looking at a
problem with IPv6 fragment handling?

Robert N M Watson             FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects
robert_at_fledge.watson.org      Principal Research Scientist, McAfee Research


> 
> # NFS server is 5.2.1R, client is current.
> 
> When I did some write operation, it may wait too long.  I can
> sometimes write without problem, but sometimes not.  I took tcpdump -vvv:
> 
> 22:48:25.128338 2001:218:422:2::XXXX > 2001:218:422:2::YYYY: frag (0xdf59d78f:0|1448) 2001:218:422:2::XXXX.1516376639 > 2001:218:422:2::YYYY.2049: 1440 write fh 1034,59016/16299072 4586 bytes _at_ 0xc000 <unstable> [flowlabel 0x56097] (len 1456, hlim 64)
> 22:48:25.128371 2001:218:422:2::XXXX > 2001:218:422:2::YYYY: frag (0xdf59d78f:1448|1448) [flowlabel 0x56097] (len 1456, hlim 64)
> 22:48:25.128405 2001:218:422:2::XXXX > 2001:218:422:2::YYYY: frag (0xdf59d78f:2896|1448) [flowlabel 0x56097] (len 1456, hlim 64)
> 22:48:25.128430 2001:218:422:2::XXXX > 2001:218:422:2::YYYY: frag (0xdf59d78f:4344|400) [flowlabel 0x56097] (len 408, hlim 64)
> 22:48:25.129335 2001:218:422:2::YYYY.2049 > 2001:218:422:2::XXXX.1516376639: reply ok 160 write PRE: sz 0xd1ea mtime 1089294496.000000 ctime 1089294496.000000 POST: REG 664 ids 1000/1000 sz 0xd1ea nlink 1 rdev 199/65077248 fsid 0x420 fileid 0xf8b440 a/m/ctime 1089287695.000000 1089294502.000000 1089294502.000000 4586 bytes <unstable> (len 168, hlim 64)
> 22:48:25.129489 2001:218:422:2::XXXX > 2001:218:422:2::YYYY: [icmp6 sum ok] icmp6: 2001:218:422:2::XXXX udp port 829 unreachable (len 216, hlim 64)
> 
> I don't know why client side replied as port unreachable.  With IPv4,
> there is no problem.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jun Kuriyama <kuriyama_at_imgsrc.co.jp> // IMG SRC, Inc.
>              <kuriyama_at_FreeBSD.org> // FreeBSD Project
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"
>