Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 21:40:23 +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-196361-2472-9c6sDHSBY9@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 #12 from Alan Somers <asomers@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to jhujhiti from comment #11) Regarding same_ip_multiple_ifaces_fib0, the configuration isn't valid. But that's not the point of the test. As the comment and the PR say, the point= of the test is just to make sure you don't panic if you try to configure a sys= tem that way. For that matter, assigning the same IP to different interfaces on different fibs (as same_ip_multiple_ifaces) tests doesn't really make sense either, b= ut I added a test case for it because it worked on older versions of FreeBSD and some people were actually using that feature. But the situation is much mo= re interesting with IPv6 because of the concept of scopes. With IPv6, it makes sense to assign the same address to multiple interfaces, as long as their scopes are not overlapping. They can even use the same FIB. For example, = the same link-local address can be assigned to two different interfaces, as lon= g as they're on separate networks. Since these patches are starting to get fairly complicated, could you please create an account at https://reviews.freebsd.org/ and upload the patches th= ere? It's far easier to review patches there than on Bugzilla. --=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-196361-2472-9c6sDHSBY9>