Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:11:26 +0000 From: "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@FreeBSD.org> To: Anton Yuzhaninov <citrin@citrin.ru> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: kern/106722: [net] [patch] ifconfig may not connect an interface to known network Message-ID: <45FAA58E.6000600@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <446293168.20070316145503@citrin.ru> References: <20070314115916.GB2713@cell.sick.ru> <45F81C0D.2000608@FreeBSD.org> <20070314161023.GF2713@cell.sick.ru> <45F974BE.5050404@freebsd.org> <446293168.20070316145503@citrin.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anton Yuzhaninov wrote: > Thursday, March 15, 2007, 7:30:54 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > AO> IMO when configuring a interface with an IP address and network it should > AO> kick out previous host and/or network routes matching it. Unless those > AO> are from locally configured interfaces, then it should reject the new > AO> attempt. > > New route should replace existing one only if it have administrative > distance (in cisco terms) smaller than AD for existing route. > > Preference of network from locally configured interface is only > particular case of this general principle. > We are obstructed by the current radix trie code only matching on destination and prefix. Adding 'administrative distance' to the FTE match is something which should seriously be considered. It is a stepping stone to equal cost multipath and would help in this situation. It does however considerably change the semantics of the existing routing socket and its consumers would need to be updated to reflect that fact. As I hinted at in my original response: it seems acceptable that ifconfig'ing an interface into the system should be able to clobber the overlapping routes in the meantime, but only until the architecture is fixed. Regards, BMS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45FAA58E.6000600>