[01:04] <A_D> sarnold: sorry disappeared, I used netplan apply to apply it
[01:04] <A_D> it correctly sets the IP
[01:04] <A_D> and no errors I believe, but let me double check
[01:06] <A_D> nope, is clear
[01:07] <sarnold> A_D: what does ip route get report for various ipv6 addresses?
[01:07] <A_D> one sec let me remove the route I added manually for it
[01:10] <A_D> RTNETLINK answers: Network is unreachable
[01:10] <A_D> for ip route get on  2c0f:fb50:4002:803::200e and 2604:a880:2:d0::1290:a001
[01:11] <A_D> for reference `ip -6 route list` returns 2001:41d0:801:2000::17d3 dev ens3 proto kernel metric 256 pref medium and fe80::/64 dev ens3 proto kernel metric 256 pref medium, where my `gateway6` directive in the netplan config file is gateway6: "2001:41d0:0801:2000:0000:0000:0000:0001"
[01:12] <A_D> I would expect there to be a default route to that gateway if my understanding is correct, and adding such a route manually allows v6 traffic to run normally
[01:17] <sarnold> A_D: hrm. can you pastebin your netplan config? I'm seeing a handful of ways that it could be configured on https://netplan.io/examples and i'm curious which approach you've taken
[01:18] <A_D> sarnold: https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/Zxb55NKYV6/ I've heard rumours that this is a netplan bug, but I'm not sure
[01:19] <sarnold> A_D: 801 vs 0801 .. I'd cry if that's related, but I have to ask .. is that related? :)
[01:20] <A_D> I hope it isnt, one sec
[01:21] <A_D> nope
[01:21] <A_D> added the 0 to the gateway addr
[01:21] <sarnold> well, okay. I'm glad that wasn't it, but that was my only remaining idea. heh.
[01:21] <A_D> sorry, removed*
[01:21] <A_D> and yeah
[01:21] <A_D> I'm pretty lost on this one as well
[01:22] <sarnold> A_D: please file a bug. this feels like it ought to work.
[01:22] <A_D> oh well, Ill add an init script or similar to add the routes
[01:32] <A_D> sarnold: report filed
[01:32] <sarnold> A_D: thanks
[05:28] <hydrian> Got an odd issue with 16.04.6. I've been using kvm for months with no problem after the initial setup. Not after a reboot, none of my guests can get link-layer connection to the local network. (DHCP isn't working)
[05:28] <hydrian> I check to see if my kbeth bridge is up and it says it is active.
[05:29] <hydrian> It is effecting all my VMs. (3 ubuntu servers 16.04 and 18.04 guest VMs)
[05:30] <hydrian> KVM host is 16.04.6
[05:31] <hydrian> long time no see lotuspsychje
[05:31] <lotuspsychje_> hydrian: yeah got dc :p
[05:35] <lotuspsychje> hydrian: you might wanna idle a bit until USA wakes up, more volunteers will become active
[05:36] <hydrian> Could not generate persistent MAC address for virbr0: No such file or directory
[05:36] <hydrian> Maybe a culprit
[05:46] <hydrian> no luck still...
[05:49] <hydrian> Yea.. I'm not going to have that luxuary. I have 5 kids to take care in the morning (I'm USA too)
[06:28] <Gerowen> Just wanted to let you guys know, if any of you are devs, that when I recently migrated my home server to Ubuntu Server 18.04, I had an issue with the smaller, "live" installer image for Server 18.04.  It installed, but then said "no bootable media found".  Using the larger, regular install image resulted in success, so there's something different about the live ISO that makes the bootloader not install properly on certain systems.  The motherboard
[06:28] <Gerowen> is an older board that used to be in an HP tower I bought years ago and have just frankesteined into being a server.  Using an AMD Phenom II X6 processor with a SATA SSD for the system drive.  Motherboard specs are here: https://support.hp.com/us-en/document/c02560084
[07:14] <testpil0t> Hello. Is there any way to inject received v6 routes (via ra) into a specific routing table using netplan?
[07:15] <testpil0t> I have a vlan device that receives routes via RA. But those should only be used for sourced based policy routing
[07:15] <testpil0t> Hence I'd like to use a specific table for this purpose
[07:21] <lotuspsychje> testpil0t: this channel is bit more active on US wakeup, so re-ask if you see movement :p
[07:21] <testpil0t> Hehe, okies. I will :]
[07:22] <lotuspsychje> testpil0t: im not really familliar with netplan myself, but ive seen guides on the yaml file to add routes
[07:23] <cim209> so livepatch is setup on snap, do i need to configure it or is it set it and forget it
[07:23] <lotuspsychje> !livepatch
[07:23] <testpil0t> ya, specific routes work without problems. But i have problems adding the link-local routes that come via router advertisements. As (at least) I cannot predict them
[07:23] <testpil0t> so i cannot add them to the routing policy
[07:26] <cim209> lotuspsychje: so...no?
[07:30] <lotuspsychje> cim209: livepatch needs an account setting up
[07:30] <cim209> lotuspsychje: i already have it set up
[07:30] <cim209> on 3 servers
[07:30] <cim209> i was asking if there's any further intervention
[07:31] <lotuspsychje> cim209: not sure if a reboot is needed after first setup on server
[07:31] <lotuspsychje> cim209: but normally, if setup right, you should be able to check kernels right?
[07:31] <cim209> i've kinda just let it do its thing since last year after installing
[07:32] <cim209> i've been checking on it
[07:32] <cim209> it's normally saying     patchState: nothing-to-apply
[07:32] <cim209> idk if it's working properly
[07:32] <lotuspsychje> cim209: wich server version are you on?
[07:32] <cim209> 18.04
[07:32] <lotuspsychje> cim209: and your kernel version?
[07:32] <cim209> 4.15.0-47-generic
[07:33] <lotuspsychje> cim209: -48 is out, so that doesnt seem right
[07:33] <cim209> oh i haven't updated yet
[07:33] <cim209> 18 pending updates
[07:33] <lotuspsychje> kk
[07:33] <cim209> *** System restart required ***
[07:33] <cim209> could be that too
[07:39] <lotuspsychje> cim209: you could try right now, isnt livepatch suppose to apply new kernel without a reboot
[07:40] <cim209> lotuspsychje: i think it's only for "critical" patches
[07:40] <cim209> "critical" security patches
[07:40] <lotuspsychje> well new kernel is kinda critical no?
[07:40] <cim209> "addressing the highest and most critical security vulnerabilities, without requiring a reboot in order to take effect"
[07:41] <cim209> a general kernel release could just be enhancements/performance updates
[07:42] <cim209> yeah it just hot patches security kernel updates
[07:42] <cim209> which i'm fine with
[07:43] <cim209> it's been 18 days since last reboot, why do i need to reboot in such a short time?
[07:53] <andol> cim209: Whatever you need to a reboot or not based on a particular new kernel version is a decision only you can make. Yet, ideally you will want to have a setup where a server reboot isn't that big of a deal, and something you can do just to be on the safe side.