Hello Robert!
Thanks for the reply. As you suggested, I tried tcpdump. BTW: This is all happening on the actual network interface, not the loopback interface.
I can see a constant stream of these packets:
10:31:46.504046 IP6 2a04:52c0:101:7b1::.5344 > ff15::efc0:988f.6771: UDP, length 138
10:31:48.502125 IP6 2a04:52c0:101:7b1::.60918 > ff15::efc0:988f.6771: UDP, length 138
10:31:48.502518 IP6 2a04:52c0:101:7b1::.42225 > ff15::efc0:988f.6771: UDP, length 138
10:31:48.502537 IP6 2a04:52c0:101:7b1::.33293 > ff15::efc0:988f.6771: UDP, length 138
10:31:48.502647 IP6 2a04:52c0:101:7b1::.51209 > ff15::efc0:988f.6771: UDP, length 138
2a04:52c0:101:7b1 is on the same network as my machine (technically, my ISP gave me the address 2a04:52c0:101:162::/64, but I don't use it and haven't configured the interface with it).
Every now and then I see this:
10:31:49.689606 IP6 ::1.52736 > ff15::efc0:988f.6771: UDP, length 139
10:31:49.690455 IP6 ::1.6771 > ff15::efc0:988f.6771: UDP, length 139
10:31:51.690739 IP6 ::1.52736 > ff15::efc0:988f.6771: UDP, length 139
10:31:51.691180 IP6 ::1.6771 > ff15::efc0:988f.6771: UDP, length 139
and this correlates perfectly with /var/log/messages:
[Thu Apr 22 10:31:49 CEST 2021 < 27.000723>] in6_setscope: can't set scope for not loopback interface vioif0 and loopback address ::1
[Thu Apr 22 10:31:49 CEST 2021 < 0.000000>] in6_setscope: can't set scope for not loopback interface vioif0 and loopback address ::1
[Thu Apr 22 10:31:51 CEST 2021 < 2.002278>] in6_setscope: can't set scope for not loopback interface vioif0 and loopback address ::1
[Thu Apr 22 10:31:51 CEST 2021 < 0.000000>] in6_setscope: can't set scope for not loopback interface vioif0 and loopback address ::1
So I see packets on my network interface (i.e. not the loopback interface) with a source of ::1. I am waiting for a reply from my ISP if I am seeing pink elephants or if there are actually such packets on the network.
Do you know if port 6771 is some well-known port in IPv6 for housekeeping? The information I found seem to lean more to malware, and 2a04:52c0:101:7b1 might not be acting in good faith...?