[ntp:questions] Trouble with XP IPv6 ntp client (still unable to connect to link local ntp server)
chuyser at io.com
Sat Aug 7 14:07:35 UTC 2010
On Aug 6, 9:30 pm, Cindy Huyser <chuy... at io.com> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 8:17 pm, Danny Mayer <ma... at ntp.org> wrote:
> > On 8/6/2010 12:29 PM, Cindy Huyser wrote:
> > > Using a packet sniffer, I verified that no traffic addressed to the
> > > server (or coming from it) is going across the ethernet interface when
> > > my configuration file specifies the IPv6 server. I also verified that
> > > I saw ICMPv6 packets going across when I pinged the server, along with
> > > the neighbor solicitation and advertisement. The server is in the XP
> > > host's destination cache, and also is listed in the "neighbors" list.
> > > I'm puzzled as to why there's not even an attempt at neighbor
> > > discovery.
> > > Maybe the trouble shows up in the line "findlocalinterface: kernel
> > > maps fe80::290:fbff:fe80:6aff to ::", and the subsequent use of the
> > > wildcard (or maybe not -- the address for the server is not local to
> > > the host, but the host should be able to figure out that it needs to
> > > send a neighbor discovery solicitation from it single ethernet
> > > interface!). Can anyone out there shed any light on this?
> > Correct, it should not be using the wildcard address. Can you give again
> > your configuration file, at least the server lines? I have an idea about
> > this and I just want to be able to check. If so, I may be able to tell
> > you what's wrong.
> > Danny
> > > Thanks again,
> > > Cindy
> My configuration file is very simple:
> driftfile "C:\Windows\Temp\ntp.drift"
> broadcastdelay 0.008
> logfile "C:\Windows\Temp\ntp.log"
> server -6 fe80::290:fbff:fe80:6aff%4 minpoll 4 maxpoll 5 iburst prefer
After all this, with all due respect I wonder how much testing of this
functionality has gone on with Windows XP? I have low confidence at
this point that the prefix-matching mechanism in ntpd/
ntp_io.c:findlocalinterface() is working well for XP, at least for
link-local addresses. I would be glad to have someone contradict me,
or to point out my error in configuration. I would also be glad to add
a bug to the bug list if that's appropriate.
More information about the questions