Bug 231261

Summary: dns/ddclient: does not recognize IPv6
Product: Ports & Packages Reporter: O. Hartmann <ohartmann>
Component: Individual Port(s)Assignee: freebsd-ports-bugs mailing list <ports-bugs>
Status: Open ---    
Severity: Affects Some People CC: mjl, w.schwarzenfeld
Priority: --- Keywords: needs-patch, needs-qa
Version: LatestFlags: bugzilla: maintainer-feedback? (mjl)
koobs: merge-quarterly?
Hardware: Any   
OS: Any   

Description O. Hartmann 2018-09-09 10:52:40 UTC
Running dns/ddclient on recent 12-CURRENT (FreeBSD 12.0-ALPHA5 #32 r338541: Sun Sep  9 09:27:47 CEST 2018 amd64) with ports recently update (ports tree is at Revision: 479281), the command 

ddclient -query

results in

use=if, if=igb0 address is fe80::20e:b7ee:fe42:1130
use=if, if=igb1 address is fe80::20e:b7ee:fe42:1131
use=if, if=igb2 address is fe80::20e:b7ee:fe42:1132
use=if, if=lo0 address is
WARNING:  found neither ipv4 nor ipv6 address
use=if, if=enc0 address is NOT FOUND
use=if, if=igb1.1000 address is
use=if, if=igb1.2 address is
use=if, if=igb1.3 address is
use=if, if=igb1.10 address is
use=if, if=igb1.66 address is
use=if, if=igb1.100 address is
WARNING:  found neither ipv4 nor ipv6 address
use=if, if=ipfw0 address is NOT FOUND
use=if, if=tun0 address is XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
WARNING:  found neither ipv4 nor ipv6 address
use=web, web=dnspark address is NOT FOUND
use=web, web=dyndns address is XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX
use=web, web=loopia address is XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX

This is embarrassing! Each VLAN interface (igb1.1000 for instance) has also a link-local IPv6 address and my exterior (ppp configured) interface, tun0, even gets a IPv6 through my ISP. But those IPv6 addresses are not recognised as the query shows clearly, but some do.
Comment 1 mjl 2018-09-11 00:57:22 UTC
Does the code in https://sourceforge.net/p/ddclient/discussion/399428/thread/d864753b/ fix this problem?
Comment 2 Walter Schwarzenfeld freebsd_triage 2019-08-11 10:47:06 UTC
Reporter feedback please!
Comment 3 Kubilay Kocak freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2019-08-11 11:10:21 UTC
@Mintainer, if this this is a known issue with an upstream patch/commit already committed, or confirmed to address this issue, please create a patch against the port such that it can be evaluated directly by port users