Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 01:30:34 +0100 From: "Joe Holden" <lists@rewt.org.uk> To: <d@delphij.net>, "'Julian Elischer'" <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: 'Kimmo Paasiala' <kpaasial@gmail.com>, 'Hiroki Sato' <hrs@freebsd.org>, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, 'FreeBSD Net' <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: Why default route is not installed last? Message-ID: <1e7801cea2bc$a60acc80$f2206580$@rewt.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <521BA31C.5000807@delphij.net> References: <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net> <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org> <CA%2B7WWSfN1PJ-9h2Z6YtLvO7_yv4vESf4beY4RzyvpW-unkdLkg@mail.gmail.com> <521B9A1B.7080908@freebsd.org> <521BA31C.5000807@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
A whole extra line is required in rc.conf to make that situation work and since it is an edge case and doesn't apply in 99% of uses it really shouldn't be catered for... but what do I know? There has been a few insane changes recently ;) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd- > net@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Xin Li > Sent: 26 August 2013 19:49 > To: Julian Elischer > Cc: Kimmo Paasiala; Hiroki Sato; freebsd-rc@freebsd.org; d@delphij.net; > FreeBSD Net > Subject: Re: Why default route is not installed last? > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 08/26/13 11:10, Julian Elischer wrote: > > On 8/26/13 7:56 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> > >> wrote: > >>> Xin Li <delphij@delphij.net> wrote in > >>> <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net>: > >>> > >>> de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- de> Hash: SHA512 de> de> > >>> Hi, de> de> I've noticed that we do not install default route last > >>> (after other de> static routes). I think we should probably install > >>> it last, since the de> administrator may legitimately configure a > >>> static route (e.g. this de> IPv6 address goes to this interface) > >>> that is required by the default de> route. > >>> > >>> Do you have an example? I could imagine some theoretically but > >>> personally think that the default route which depends on a static > >>> route is one which should be avoided. > >>> > >>> -- Hiroki > >> Isn't that the case when the default gateway address is on a > >> different subnet than the address assigned to the interface? Such set > >> ups are admittedly odd but they should be possible on FreeBSD as well > >> as on other OSes. > > That has always been specifically not supported. default route needs > > to be directly attached. in fact the routing tables only ever deliver > > the 'next hop' > > Well, depends on whether the 'next hop' is an IP or an interface. For > instance one can have a valid configuration that they have a static route of: > > 2607:5300:XXXX:XXXX:ff:ff:ff:ff -prefixlen 128 -interface em0 > > Then have 2607:5300:XXXX:XXXX:ff:ff:ff:ff as default router. > > This configuration is not possible with the current rc.d startup order. > > Cheers, > - -- > Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> https://www.delphij.net/ > FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD) > > iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSG6MbAAoJEG80Jeu8UPuzAYMH/2K+wa2I2jexZourxzPgH > 25X > OWxsxZgAwd/rEbsbm/0r0ApzGLNm7WQaXaBuNk+u9G9DWOLSTh1M/axRD > Aez4vOC > EJiOfMQxMXlK7uBuA+1cUUrFbrPN4bNaRKY4DvSMWocd3x9T2CrxGaT9Y2SO > 6Q2g > 1x2xSH63MXxebFaaT7nXqLLfpT4IK7yCOWPSXatBdZyZXAZh2ePa7wP4JX/Ti4O > N > IFE6IQwOs9q+w8EiyzLMtoqpZTt882Zw8beDmKMj7On+yXsw48+ryZF54kVu8 > +Sz > dEwdvuKlXWB8FVWRz5gYbAOePq3XqCLeOuMZ5b6eIiHwhlY184nw2A94ahq > VRGE= > =27i9 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1e7801cea2bc$a60acc80$f2206580$>