Created attachment 866875 [details] debug output from 3 failed connection attempts Description of problem: If there are static IPv6 routes defined, connection attempts fail. NM goes into a loop attempting to connect and failing every three seconds. I'm attaching a debug-level syslog snippet. This problem has been introduced either in 0.9.9.0-29.git20140131 or 0.9.9.0-30.git20131003, as 0.9.9.0-28.git20131003 has no problems connecting. The configuration is as follows: $ cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-Wired_connection_1 TYPE=Ethernet BOOTPROTO=dhcp DEFROUTE=yes IPV4_FAILURE_FATAL=yes IPV6INIT=yes IPV6_AUTOCONF=yes IPV6_DEFROUTE=yes IPV6_FAILURE_FATAL=yes NAME="Wired connection 1" UUID=b323a0b6-1751-4d98-a4be-4efed24a92ff ONBOOT=yes HWADDR=9C:8E:99:D1:52:43 PEERDNS=yes PEERROUTES=yes IPV6_PEERDNS=yes IPV6_PEERROUTES=yes $ cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route6-Wired_connection_1 2a02:c0:2::/48 via 2a02:c0:100:0:ffff::1 metric 0 If I delete the route6 file, the connection succeeds. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 1:NetworkManager-0.9.9.0-30.git20131003.fc20.x86_64 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Set up a static route IPv6 via a nexthop in an on-link prefix learned from RAs. 2. Try to connect to the network. Actual results: Failure. Expected results: Success. Additional info: RAs on the network look like this: $ rdisc6 em1 Soliciting ff02::2 (ff02::2) on em1... Hop limit : 64 ( 0x40) Stateful address conf. : No Stateful other conf. : No Router preference : high Router lifetime : 30528 (0x00007740) seconds Reachable time : unspecified (0x00000000) Retransmit time : unspecified (0x00000000) Prefix : 2a02:c0:100::/64 Valid time : 2592000 (0x00278d00) seconds Pref. time : 604800 (0x00093a80) seconds Source link-layer address: 3C:D9:2B:FB:80:04 from fe80::3ed9:2bff:fefb:8004 Kernel version: 3.13.3-201.fc20.x86_64 If RAs are blocked (e.g., with "ip6tables -I IPNUT -j icmpv6 -j DROP), the connection succeeds - at least it gets to the point where it will acquire an IPv4 address via DHCPv6 and configure it. It might well be that it would have eventually torn it down again due to IPV6_FAILURE_FATAL=yes, I didn't wait for long. I have a suspicion this is caused by the "noprefixroute" work (bug #1045118). In particular, one thing that would explain the failure is if static routes are attempted to be added *before* NM adds the on-link prefix route learned from the RA; in which case the next-hop of the static route would not be reachable through an on-link route, that will fail, as shown here: $ sudo ip -6 route add 2001:db8::1/128 via 2001:db8:1::1 RTNETLINK answers: No route to host
This message is a reminder that Fedora 20 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 20. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '20'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 20 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 20 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-06-23. Fedora 20 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.