On 09/20/14 02:22, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > On 18-09-2014 13:57, James Hogarth wrote: >> On 18 Sep 2014 09:07, "dE" <de.techno at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 09/17/14 21:03, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: >>>> >>>> One more test. Please check sysctl -a | grep disable_ipv6 output >>>> And if it's =1, set it to 0. >>>> >>>> When NetworkManager is running, it may disable ipv6 on the >>>> interface if >> its not configured via NM... >>>> >>> Yes, that was it. Thanks!! >>> >>> But this's the default? The installer should be checked for this. >>> >> >> The default is not to disable ipv6 so something in your environment >> actively did this. > > Well... NM needs to put the interface UP so it can reliably monitor > the link state. But that was turning ipv6 addr auto-config on and was > considered a security issue and thus NM started disabling ipv6 on such > (non-configured via NM but monitored) interface to avoid the address > auto-configuration from happening, yet causing this. > > The fix (to be able to bring it up without ipv6 address autoconfig) > needed kernel & NM patches and show be available on 7.0.z very soon. > >> This does, however, leave me somewhat confused as to how you claimed >> there >> was a fc00::1001 address on there and you were adding the additional >> address when you saw the refused message... > > Such address was on the host, no? > > Cheers, > Marcelo > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Ok, NM IS installed. My bad, I didn't realize.