HI all, I have just upgraded from 16.04 to 18.04 and appear to have the same problem. basic connectivity, but DNS fails. Restarting networking makes DNS work, but after a reboot it fails again. I'm running this machine under vbox, so it clearly is a Ubuntu problem. I have also installed a fresh copy of 18.04 and that does NOT have the problem. Regards Ian On 09/11/2018 20:03, Andy Smith wrote: -- Ian Hobson Tel (+351) 910 418 473

Hi Mike, I doubt that Henry is running keepalived. But… As far as I understand it the problem with keepalived is that systemd-networkd (and thus netplan) want to be in control of the interface configuration and so conflict with what keepalived is trying to do. Here is some more information about that: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/2018-October/007765.html If the above is true, then this problem is not restricted to Ubuntu but applies to any system that tries to move addresses about (e.g, keepalived) and also uses systemd-networkd. I would not at this time recommend systemd-networkd for servers, so it is important that some previous method of configuration (e.g. ifupdown) is known to work… Cheers, Andy On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:33:22AM +0000, Mike Zanker wrote: -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Hello, On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:07:58PM +0000, Ian Hobson wrote: To be clear I'm not saying "don't use Ubuntu 18.04", I'm saying "don't use systemd-networkd on servers (of any kind) (yet)". I don't think we will make any progress on this without someone replicating the problem, making a bug report against ifupdown on Launchpad, and pushing it along. All I can say is that we've provisioned plenty of new Ubuntu 18.04 VPSes using /etc/network/interfaces and ifupdown and haven't heard of any problems. Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Hi Andreas, On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 05:02:25PM +0100, Andreas Olsson wrote: Hmm, there is no DHCP server at BitFolk so either: 1. netplan has limited understanding of /etc/network/interfaces, or 2. netplan writes a default config file based on its network settings in the installer phase, and ignores /etc/network/interfaces totally I just did a self-install of Ubuntu 18.04 and to my surprise it has ended up without the ifupdown package and *with* netplan. It does seem to reliably configure its main IP address and default route, but indeed it has not configured IPv6. I see there is a /etc/netplan/01-netcfg.yaml : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- # This file describes the network interfaces available on your system # For more information, see netplan(5). network: version: 2 renderer: networkd ethernets: eth0: addresses: [ 85.119.82.225/21 ] gateway4: 85.119.80.1 nameservers: search: [ vps.bitfolk.com ] addresses: - "85.119.80.232" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think it has taken these from the network settings of the installer, and not bothered with IPv6, so that is scenario (2) from above. Should I: a) Make sure the self-install for Ubuntu 18.04 and beyond works with netplan and IPv6, or b) Make the self-install for Ubuntu 18.04 and beyond default to ifupdown? (I believe this can be done by preseeding "netcfg/do_not_use_netplan=true") I am unsure which way to go. On the one hand: - netplan seems to have some deficiencies as highlighted by the keepalived thing but on the other hand: - those setups are going to be quite rare (fairly sure the only person running keepalived at BitFolk is me) - netplan is the official way in Ubuntu now so won't it be confusing if it does not arrive out of the box configured with netplan? I have added this as a bug here: https://tools.bitfolk.com/redmine/issues/172 If you have any opinion as to which way I should go in fixing it, a comment there would be appreciated (your usual BitFolk credentials to log in). It's depressing that there's not a single IPv6 example in https://netplan.io/examples Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Hello, On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 06:17:26PM +0100, Andreas Olsson wrote: The main IPv4 settings are passed on the kernel command line for these self-installs, as both Debian/Ubuntu installer and CentOS support that. For Debian/Ubuntu, a late pressed script writes an /etc/network/interfaces file that will contain the main IPv4 address, all additional IPv4 addresses, and the main IPv6. As it seems /etc/network/interfaces is being ignored by netplan, I think either the script will need to write a better netplan config or else the installer should force ifupdown. Which do you think should happen? Thanks, that's helpful. Would certainly not be difficult to construct that sort of thing. I have seen various ways to force choice of source address. Some people say to add the address last, others say to add it as a /128 and then it will always be chosen, and others say to add it as a deprecated address (preferred_lft 0) then it will never be chosen as a source address unless forced. So, personally I prefer the preferred_lft 0 method which in /etc/network/interfaces file looks like: iface eth0 inet6 static address 2001:ba8:1f1:f019::2 netmask 64 gateway 2001:ba8:1f1:f019::1 post-up /bin/ip -6 addr add 2001:ba8:1f1:f019::80/64 dev $IFACE preferred_lft 0 I will have to look up how to do it with netplan. Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 05:33:27PM +0000, Andy Smith wrote: […] […] It can't currently be done in netplan. Here is a bug I filed about that: https://bugs.launchpad.net/netplan/+bug/1803203 Here is a workaround using a networkd-dispatcher hook script: https://gist.github.com/grifferz/0421e2876b270bb6816e94e5db37bb2e Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Now this is strange. I am running Debian 9 on kernel Linux 4.9.0-8-686-pae I am moving from iptables to nftables on my second VPS (also running the same Debian etc) Last night I was testing various aspects of the firewall and tried IPV6 pings etc between the 2 VPS. I kept getting network unavailable for the one with iptables still. It is on Hobgoblin. IPV4 all OK. No IPV6 connection. A check showed it was only using the fe80 link-local address. I have checked the interfaces file and it is the same as the one on my other VPS (except for the actual addresses of course.) Done a shutdown/boot through Xen. Nothing Is netplan a thing on Debian 9, though I don't see any signs of it being there. Right at the beginning I checked thing like firewalls etc. Keith On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 at 19:37, Henry Gomersall <heng(a)mailbox.org> wrote:

Hi Andy, Yes it has always seemed to work before. cat /run/network/ifstate give lo=lo no eth0 in there at all hostname = westnorfolkrspca This is weird because pinging the ipv4 address works perfectly. I must add that for a year or so I have not had ipv6 at home (I am at present in Philippines) so have not really noticed until last night On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 at 12:10, Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com> wrote:

proof of the pudding ~# ping cebuano.life PING cebuano.life(cebuano.life (2001:ba8:1f1:f29d::)) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from ns3.keiths-place.co.uk (2001:ba8:1f1:f29d::1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.653 ms 64 bytes from ns3.keiths-place.co.uk (2001:ba8:1f1:f29d::1): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.900 ms 64 bytes from ns3.keiths-place.co.uk (2001:ba8:1f1:f29d::1): icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.02 ms ^C --- cebuano.life ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2004ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.653/0.858/1.022/0.155 ms On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 at 12:54, Keith Williams <keithwilliamsnp(a)gmail.com> wrote:

/etc/NetworkManager/: total 20 drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 Nov 2 2017 . drwxr-xr-x 108 root root 12288 Nov 22 07:11 .. drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Mar 10 2018 dispatcher.d /etc/systemd/network/: total 12 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Nov 2 2017 . drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4096 Nov 3 11:00 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 382 Nov 2 2017 99-default.link /lib/systemd/network/: total 24 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Nov 3 11:00 . drwxr-xr-x 8 root root 4096 Nov 3 11:00 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 605 Oct 28 17:02 80-container-host0.network -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 678 Oct 28 17:02 80-container-ve.network -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 664 Oct 28 17:02 80-container-vz.network -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 80 Oct 28 17:02 99-default.link On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 at 17:14, Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com> wrote:

Thanks for all the time you spent on this, Andy. I have no idea, but then I wouldn't expect to. I guess we just have to put it down to some sort of fluky one-off, or something weird that I had done at sometime Keith On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 20:13, Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com> wrote: