Bug 159103 - ping local address on box shows source address 0.0.0.0
Summary: ping local address on box shows source address 0.0.0.0
Status: Open
Alias: None
Product: Base System
Classification: Unclassified
Component: kern (show other bugs)
Version: 8.2-STABLE
Hardware: Any Any
: Normal Affects Only Me
Assignee: freebsd-net (Nobody)
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-07-22 09:20 UTC by Rashid N. Achilov
Modified: 2018-05-28 19:44 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Rashid N. Achilov 2011-07-22 09:20:07 UTC
When I try to do ordinary ping for local address in interface em0, ping shows 100% lost
master:[root] 102>ping 192.168.1.1
PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1): 56 data bytes
^C
--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss

When I do the same, but with hardly specified IP address, all OK:
master:[root] 109>ping -S 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.1
PING 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) from 192.168.1.1: 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.019 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.030 ms
^C
--- 192.168.1.1 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.019/0.025/0.030/0.005 ms

When I try to looking, what's wrong, I see, that first time source address is 0.0.0.0! 

master:[root] 113>tcpdump -i lo0 -n icmp and host 192.168.1.1
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on lo0, link-type NULL (BSD loopback), capture size 96 bytes
15:08:37.278462 IP 0.0.0.0 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 29301, seq 3, length 64
15:08:38.277404 IP 0.0.0.0 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 29301, seq 4, length 64
15:08:43.163123 IP 0.0.0.0 > 192.168.1.1: ICMP echo request, id 41845, seq 0, length 64
^C
3 packets captured
109 packets received by filter
0 packets dropped by kernel

Same way at FreeBSD 7.3-RELEASE all OK: (192.168.1.94 is their address)
to-594:[root] 139>ping 192.168.1.94
PING 192.168.1.94 (192.168.1.94): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.031 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.1.94: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.041 ms
^C
--- 192.168.1.94 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 0.031/0.036/0.041/0.005 ms

Fix: 

None
How-To-Repeat: Install FreeBSD 8.x.
Configure any local interface.
Try to ping it.
You failed.
Comment 1 Rashid N. Achilov 2011-07-29 12:10:57 UTC
There are some revisions for this bug

First. Tio obtain bug you should place "lo0" as latest member of network 
interfaces set, i.e:

network_interfaces="xl0 lo0" - bug will occured
network_interfaces="lo0 xl0" - bug will not occured
network_interfaces="xl0" - bug also will not occured

Second. To eliminate bug you must down interface and configure it manually 
again

So, I'd like to ask - WHY? Why an initialisation order takes so great and wild 
importance? (I had have tried boot with rc_debug="YES" and had have seed, 
that ANY difference between "worked" and "non-worked" boot is network 
inrterfaces initialization order - in "worked" lo0, next xl0, 
in "non-worked" - xl0, next lo0!
-- 
   With Best Regards.
   Rashid N. Achilov (RNA1-RIPE), JID: citycat4@jabber.infos.ru
   OOO "ACK" telecommunications administrator, e-mail: achilov-rn [at] askd.ru
   PGP: 83 CD E2 A7 37 4A D5 81 D6 D6 52 BF C9 2F 85 AF 97 BE CB 0A
Comment 2 Andrey Zonov 2011-10-01 18:05:42 UTC
I've got the same problem on 8.2 and 9.0. I thank that's serious problem 
and must be fixed before 9.0 release.

-- 
Andrey Zonov
Comment 3 Robert Blayzor 2012-07-27 21:40:09 UTC
Running into this bug on 9.0 diskless boot clients.  Cannot ping primary =
IP address of the NIC the server boots from, source address observed via =
TCP dump is 0.0.0.0, same as initial PR report.

Any status on a fix/update for this?


--=20
Robert Blayzor
INOC, LLC
rblayzor@inoc.net
http://www.inoc.net/~rblayzor/
Comment 4 Rashid N. Achilov 2012-07-30 03:51:47 UTC
On Saturday 28 July 2012, Robert Blayzor wrote:
> Running into this bug on 9.0 diskless boot clients.  Cannot ping primary IP 
address of the NIC the server boots from, source address observed via TCP 
dump is 0.0.0.0, same as initial PR report.
> 
> Any status on a fix/update for this?

I do not know nothing about updates. I had have detected a *workaround* - when 
lo0 is FIRST interface name in network_interfaces or missed in it (this way 
it will init by default) - bug does not occured. When it is non-first in 
network_interfaces - bug occured. But this is only *workaround*, this bug 
need real fix.
-- 
   With Best Regards.
   Rashid N. Achilov (RNA1-RIPE), JID: citycat4@jabber.infos.ru
   OOO "ACK" telecommunications administrator, e-mail: achilov-rn [at] askd.ru
   PGP: 83 CD E2 A7 37 4A D5 81 D6 D6 52 BF C9 2F 85 AF 97 BE CB 0A
Comment 5 Robert Blayzor 2012-07-30 03:54:18 UTC
On Jul 29, 2012, at 10:51 PM, "Rashid N. Achilov" <achilov-rn@askd.ru> =
wrote:
> I do not know nothing about updates. I had have detected a =
*workaround* - when=20
> lo0 is FIRST interface name in network_interfaces or missed in it =
(this way=20
> it will init by default) - bug does not occured. When it is non-first =
in=20
> network_interfaces - bug occured. But this is only *workaround*, this =
bug=20
> need real fix.


Unfortunately this workaround does not work for a diskless client since =
the first interface initialized is the NIC the kernel has booted from.  =
I tried your workaround in the diskless boot, and the result is the =
same.  This bug occurs.

--=20
Robert Blayzor
INOC, LLC
rblayzor@inoc.net
http://www.inoc.net/~rblayzor/
Comment 6 Hiren Panchasara freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2017-01-07 23:49:10 UTC
Is this still valid/reproducible?
Comment 7 Eitan Adler freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2018-05-28 19:44:20 UTC
batch change:

For bugs that match the following
-  Status Is In progress 
AND
- Untouched since 2018-01-01.
AND
- Affects Base System OR Documentation

DO:

Reset to open status.


Note:
I did a quick pass but if you are getting this email it might be worthwhile to double check to see if this bug ought to be closed.