Date: 08 Dec 1997 01:17:56 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> To: Brian Somers <brian@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Route behaviour (was Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/ppp command.c ppp.8 route.c) Message-ID: <8690twpu17.fsf@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: Brian Somers's message of Sat, 6 Dec 1997 20:09:16 -0800 (PST) References: <199712070409.UAA29789@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brian Somers <brian@FreeBSD.ORG> writes: > brian 1997/12/06 20:09:16 PST > > Modified files: > usr.sbin/ppp command.c ppp.8 route.c > Log: > Only allow one arg to `delete' - the mask & gateway aren't necessary. > Delete AF_LINK routes as well as AF_INET. > Allow the word `default' as the arg to `delete' or in place of the > first two args (dest & netmask) to `add'. > Accept INTERFACE as the third arg to `add'. > > You can now say `add default interface' to create a default route > through the tun interface. It's reported that subsequent bind()s > will bind to a broadcast address and not to the address currently > assigned to the tun device - this is the first step towards > supporting that first connection that was around from before the > dynamic IP negotiation.... I've been thinking a bit more about it, and now I consider this binding a bug. With an interface route to an interface with no assigned address, we're actually sending packets onto the network that hasn't got a legit source address. This works for the single case where there is a NAT engine at the other end of that link, but that is also the _only_ case it works for. I'm still a bit uncertain about what would be the best approach - probably binding to another interface in the machine. That's weird too, but probably less surprising never the less What do other people think? Is this feasible given the way routing is implemented in the FreeBSD kernel? Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8690twpu17.fsf>