Hi all,

I am trying to complete the network configuration on Debian 12 using the default
installed `ifupdown` package. I have noticed some confusing behavior with `ifupdown` while following the manual pages.

Specifically, when I place `iface eno1 inet6 auto` with `privext 2` after `iface
inet eno1 dhcp` as instructed by the manual, the behavior becomes unpredictable.
Typically, the `privext` setting does not work as expected and has no effect when I initially boot into Debian 12 every time, even though the value of `/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/eno1/use_tempaddr` is correctly set to 2. No temporary IPv6 address is assigned to the interface.

However, if I restart the networking service using `systemctl restart networking`, everything starts working correctly, and the temporary IPv6 address
is assigned and displayed. Strangely, after multiple reboot of my Debian 12 PC, the temporary address occasionally appears without manually restarting the networking service. The behavior seems unstable and inconsistent.

When I accidentally placed `iface eno1 inet6 auto` with `privext 2` before `iface inet eno1 dhcp`, everything worked without any problem. All settings correctly applied, and there was no need to manually restart the networking service.

I have searched online but found nothing relevant, as if this is an isolated case. The manual also does not mention this behavior. I can reproduce this consistently from Debian 11 to Debian testing/unstable.

Is this behavior expected / considered a feature? Or is it an isolated case? Should I report this as a bug, and if so, where should I do that?

Additionally, it would be helpful to mention this behavior in the manual pages if it's expected, perhaps in a known limitations section. It took me days to solve this issue, and I was stumble upon the solution by sheer luck.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Best regards.

PS: I am not sure that I subscribed to the mailing list correctly as this is my first time using one. Please forgive me if I did anything wrong. :>

Here are the full configuration I mentioned before. The default lo section is omitted.

# privext will not work
allow-hotplug eno1
iface eno1 inet dhcp
iface eno1 inet6 auto
privext 2
# =====================

# privext works
allow-hotplug eno1
iface eno1 inet6 auto
privext 2
iface eno1 inet dhcp

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi.

Sorry, i cant help with your specific problem.

Just didn't want you to feel alone...

I don't know whats becoming of Debian these days.

Users need to stick together,  but the traffic stats for these lists
paint a bleak picture.

The attitude these days seems to be that 'if its not in bugzilla, no one cares'

Seems like the Debian project is forgetting that it is a social
endeavour, not a (increasingly small) handful of Devs vanity project...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-07-26, Ian Molton wrote:

The attitude these days seems to be that 'if its not in bugzilla, no one cares'

Seems like the Debian project is forgetting that it is a social endeavour, not
a (increasingly small) handful of Devs vanity project...

I largely disagree with that. I was helped and try to help the same way
since 30 years :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed 24 Jul 2024 at 14:29:34 (+0000), MailGuard01 wrote:

I am trying to complete the network configuration on Debian 12 using the default
installed `ifupdown` package. I have noticed some confusing behavior with `ifupdown` while following the manual pages.

Specifically, when I place `iface eno1 inet6 auto` with `privext 2` after `iface
inet eno1 dhcp` as instructed by the manual, the behavior becomes unpredictable.
Typically, the `privext` setting does not work as expected and has no effect when I initially boot into Debian 12 every time, even though the value of `/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/eno1/use_tempaddr` is correctly set to 2. No temporary
IPv6 address is assigned to the interface.

However, if I restart the networking service using `systemctl restart networking`, everything starts working correctly, and the temporary IPv6 address
is assigned and displayed. Strangely, after multiple reboot of my Debian 12 PC,
the temporary address occasionally appears without manually restarting the networking service. The behavior seems unstable and inconsistent.

When I accidentally placed `iface eno1 inet6 auto` with `privext 2` before `iface inet eno1 dhcp`, everything worked without any problem. All settings correctly applied, and there was no need to manually restart the networking service.

I have searched online but found nothing relevant, as if this is an isolated case. The manual also does not mention this behavior. I can reproduce this consistently from Debian 11 to Debian testing/unstable.

Is this behavior expected / considered a feature? Or is it an isolated case? Should I report this as a bug, and if so, where should I do that?

There is a bug report #960809, which seems related, and
might be worth adding your experience to, if you think so.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=960809

Additionally, it would be helpful to mention this behavior in the manual pages
if it's expected, perhaps in a known limitations section. It took me days to solve this issue, and I was stumble upon the solution by sheer luck.

I did wonder whether any of the randomness wrt reboots might be
time-related, as skim reading the RFC, it seems to allow for storing
a history of addresses used, and periodic generation of new ones
rather than a fresh one every reboot.

Cheers,
David.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Michael, that was not a personal attack. I am in no doubt that you
personally try to help.

The statistics for this list, however, are public record. And they are
indeed of concern.

Like so many open source projects, Debian is clearly showing a loss of community, and whilst it continues to be a solid pillar of the internet generally, it appears to be increasingly maintained by a smaller (proportionally) group as time goes by, with less community engagement.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 2024-07-26 at 23:12 +0100, Ian Molton wrote:

Michael, that was not a personal attack. I am in no doubt that you personally try to help.

The statistics for this list, however, are public record. And they
are
indeed of concern.

Like so many open source projects, Debian is clearly showing a loss
of
community, and whilst it continues to be a solid pillar of the
internet
generally, it appears to be increasingly maintained by a smaller (proportionally) group as time goes by, with less community
engagement.

What you say makes perfect sense.
I have already argued along this line.
There are some here who fail to understand that this kind of project is different, and not to be `organised' along conventional lines.
It is a *community* project, and gains its vitality from the vitality
of that community.
The community has lost its vitality, so the project suffers.
You can't split the one aspect from the other.

At one time, this list literally raged!
There were discussions on all sorts of things, far beyond Debian, but
it was a vibrant community. And the project benefited from that
vibrancy.

Now, it is politically correct.
The difference is observable.
That difference is a yawning gulf.
But there are those who insist this is the way forward, in a situation
where the OpenBSD list has more life to it.
Let it go.
Enjoy what we have while it lasts.
Cheers!


--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-07-26, Ian Molton wrote:

Michael, that was not a personal attack. I am in no doubt that you personally try to help.

And *was helped*. So I am not alone :)

The statistics for this list, however, are public record. And they are indeed of concern.

Can you give the statistics which corroborate this ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi,

As I said - the mailing list stats. Public record.

Heres a picture.

https://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-user.png

An alarming decline, with a multitude of reasons.

But lack of community will be the one that ends that graph. Be in no
doubt.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-07-28, Ian Molton wrote:

https://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-user.png

An alarming decline, with a multitude of reasons.

But lack of community will be the one that ends that graph. Be in no doubt.

Members remains around 3000 so I don't see a decline for this.
Messages decline but I think we can't conclude clearly with those
statistics only. There is multiple channels for support apart mailing
lists. And is this a decline of community or better quality, easier use, increased users skills ?
These statistics could raise your mood :)
https://wiki.debian.org/Statistics
with perhaps Member count: https://github.com/jwilk/dd-num-graph

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Which web forum has the commuity moved to then? I should like to join
it...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, July 26th, 2024 at PM 10:42, David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:

There is a bug report #960809, which seems related, and
might be worth adding your experience to, if you think so.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=960809

Thank you for letting me know about this. I also noticed this issue
earlier, but it seems to have been resolved, or at least I can not
reproduce it. Not, all the main IPv6 address of each subnet are
correctly mark as `mngtmpaddr`.

Is it still reasonable to add my experience to existing bug report,
or should I submit a new one instead?
But I still worried this is an isolated case. Will try to reproduce
it on another environment once I got time.

I did wonder whether any of the randomness wrt reboots might be
time-related, as skim reading the RFC, it seems to allow for storing
a history of addresses used, and periodic generation of new ones
rather than a fresh one every reboot.

I didn't pay much attention to this since it only worked as expected
maybe once or twice out of dozens of attempts.

Based on my experience, the `addr_gen_mode` sysctl parameter might
be responsible for this. It can stabilize the auto-configured IPv6,
but it only affect the management IPv6; the temporary one changes
with every reboot.

Strangely, I do have a few Debian server that work regardless of the configuration order, but freshly installed systems never do.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, Jul 28, 2024 at 19:08:58 +0000, MailGuard01 wrote:

Is it still reasonable to add my experience to existing bug report,
or should I submit a new one instead?

Adding to an existing bug report is a good thing, especially if you can
bring new insights, new examples, etc.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)