![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/3035b38ff33cf86f480bb169b8500b80.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986395
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986395#c15
--- Comment #15 from Neil Brown
You're sure you haven't just overlooked something?
No, I'm not. I haven't been able to reproduce it. Other things are weird though. It seems fairly easy to trigger the IPv6: ipv6_create_tempaddr: regeneration time exceeded - disabled temporary address support message, which seems like it should be nearly impossible on a network with half a dozen hosts. And "ip -6 addr" reports e.g. inet6 2406:3400:c:15:7036:9572:6256:d431/64 scope global temporary dynamic valid_lft 277sec preferred_lft 14177sec so the preferred_lft is larger than the valid_lft. # grep . /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/eth0/temp_* /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/eth0/temp_prefered_lft:120 /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/eth0/temp_valid_lft:500 so preferred_lft should be less than 120. A couple of minutes later it says: valid_lft 155sec preferred_lft 0sec so it jumped to 0 (and became 'deprecated') rather quickly. but now establishing an IPv6 connection doesn't create a new temp address, but just uses the permanent one. When I do have an NFS connection from a temporary address, and the temp address becomes invalid, I've seen "time ls -l /mnt" take 14 minutes, thought 3.5 is more common. I don't think the NFS client does ever disconnect itself. It just waits for the networking layer to break the connection. Yes, I saw the thread on "research" thanks. There is definitely something wrong, and not having temp_addresses as the default would probably be the best fix. I'm starting to lean towards just telling NFS to always request a public address... OK, more weirdness.. My temp address became valid_lft 0sec preferred_lft 14100sec so it shouldn't work any more. and "ls -l" blocked for 210 seconds. Now that same temporary address is working again. The 'valid_lft' is 228sec. It never became deprecated. It just stopped working for a while, then started again. I think I want to say "temporary addresses are obviously buggy, they shouldn't be used.." -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.