Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 02:33:54 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 196361] Constrain IPv6 routes to each FIB (Consistent with IPv4 route behaviour) 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/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-196361-2472-E91xXduzxa>