From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 25 13:35:20 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495BA106566C; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:35:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mavbsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-bw0-f227.google.com (mail-bw0-f227.google.com [209.85.218.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94E2D8FC16; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:35:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz27 with SMTP id 27so1929914bwz.43 for ; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:35:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/M9N6sgtyjSoanZSMxJDqHO0iSGYxe1D+iDZpRYTngw=; b=RpWzj0ytZg6dgZXn5srypv/RAg9f6GjrgWhb7403QHyCo9sz1Y6x64l6l4k9WFhYM3 5u+0pWbBfYBYtNWQ6u+ot5Mzw0eaitZmwPvb+p83ZlSiEwWfYjdFLHTNeGbknyVQSw4j 6eNdi9WHD5sQDUP0CBFO4L0AC0deQs8XWDhU8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=elvIiKt/7IVB3bvU2UF7DBSR6ErWMKnTGECHZ0A27fcSwlvD4ytop/BAApgWIYXhsL AzPc+h3Wpkbo/2B1BZsrOm6qWvePXYbhaTl41vYouC5rzNe9V7bpJ5q92sRLJBE9PhmO YjwVw8/oID/qh92IDjF473UZ6ppm08DIxPkH4= Received: by 10.204.154.131 with SMTP id o3mr141943bkw.66.1253885718544; Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:35:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mavbook.mavhome.dp.ua (pc.mavhome.dp.ua [212.86.226.226]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm676729fkq.0.2009.09.25.06.35.16 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Alexander Motin Message-ID: <4ABCC712.3090400@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:35:14 +0300 From: Alexander Motin User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090901) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Hay References: <4ABBAC87.4040306@FreeBSD.org> <4ABBE5C6.6070707@FreeBSD.org> <4ABC6E7C.80305@FreeBSD.org> <20090925090104.GA99931@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <20090925090104.GA99931@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net , "Li, Qing" , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Point-to-Point interfaces regressions X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:35:20 -0000 John Hay wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:27:04AM -0700, Li, Qing wrote: >>> Li, Qing wrote: >>>>> Me and many other people running net/mpd handling thousands of PtP >>>>> interfaces sharing local addresses with each other and with some >>>>> Ethernet interface. This change makes such setup inoperable, as mpd >>>>> will constantly receive errors while trying to set addresses and >>>>> drop connections. >>>> I can revert to the old behavior. I asked for feedback and >> received >>>> none at the time ... >>> I would like to see it working, but working correctly. If it is not >>> possible to implement it correctly - then reverted, or at least >>> disabled >>> by default. >>> >> Asking for compatibility is reasonable but the existing packet >> leaking behavior is incorrect. >> >> After reviewing the previous thread on this topic back in July, >> I see that Henri Hennebert requested this feature for IPv6. >> >> I intend to introduce a sysctl variable to control whether loopback >> route should be installed for the local end point. By default >> the old behavior maintained. Ok. Will it fixed for 8.0-RELEASE? > What about only adding the route if it does not exist yet? That should > handle the common case of reusing your ip address on the ethernet > interface on the local side of point-to-point links. Special care should be taken then on address remove, to not remove route while the same address is still present on another interface. Also care should be taken for the case, when address assigned to Ethernet interface after PtP. -- Alexander Motin