From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org  Thu Dec 29 02:33:55 2016
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ACEEC95E7C
 for <freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:33:55 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F2C417CB
 for <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:33:55 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118])
 by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id uBT2XsGG055520
 for <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:33:55 GMT
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
Subject: [Bug 196361] Constrain IPv6 routes to each FIB (Consistent with IPv4
 route behaviour)
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:33:54 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System
X-Bugzilla-Component: kern
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.1-RELEASE
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-patch, needs-qa
X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me
X-Bugzilla-Who: jhujhiti@adjectivism.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: New
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: ---
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-196361-2472-E91xXduzxa@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-196361-2472@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-196361-2472@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:33:55 -0000

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D196361

--- Comment #11 from jhujhiti@adjectivism.org ---
Created attachment 178370
  --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D178370&action=
=3Dedit
inet6 test cases

(In reply to Alan Somers from comment #10)

Hi Alan,

Here are the test cases. I've created inet6 variants of
loopback_and_network_routes_on_nondefault_fib,
default_route_with_multiple_fibs_on_same_subnet, and
subnet_route_with_multiple_fibs_on_same_subnet.

Regarding same_ip_multiple_ifaces_fib0: should this even work for IPv4? To =
me,
it seems invalid to allow conflicting local addresses in the same FIB. In a=
ny
case, neither current HEAD nor my patch allow this situation for inet6. The
second address addition will fail with EEXIST. However, assigning the same
address to interfaces in different FIBs does make sense and work, so I've
created an inet6 variant of same_ip_multiple_ifaces instead.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=