From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 20 07:34:05 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4207A1065670 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:34:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bra@fsn.hu) Received: from people.fsn.hu (people.fsn.hu [195.228.252.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E673E8FC0A for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:34:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by people.fsn.hu (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A1F29BA8984; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:34:03 +0100 (CET) X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.2 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MF-ACE0E1EA [pR: 16.9647] X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20120120_08340_AD987885 X-CRM114-Status: Good ( pR: 16.9647 ) X-DSPAM-Result: Whitelisted X-DSPAM-Processed: Fri Jan 20 08:34:03 2012 X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.7631 X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000 X-DSPAM-Signature: 4f1918eb294972342189105 X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, From*Attila Nagy , 0.00010, FreeBSD, 0.00053, >+I, 0.00082, to+>, 0.00151, a+>, 0.00155, wrote+>, 0.00163, of+>, 0.00209, >+>, 0.00260, >+>, 0.00260, Hi+>, 0.00275, wrote, 0.00473, Is+there, 0.00574, >+That, 0.00603, References*fsn.hu>, 0.00669, there+any, 0.00708, rc, 0.00752, a+patch, 0.00752, static, 0.00771, Date*2012+08, 0.99000, not+having, 0.01000, sucks, 0.01000, hacking, 0.01000, a+PR, 0.01000, way+which, 0.99000, 08+15, 0.01000, Date*02+0100, 0.99000, X-Spambayes-Classification: ham; 0.00 Received: from japan.t-online.private (japan.t-online.co.hu [195.228.243.99]) by people.fsn.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5B3FBA8962; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:34:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F1918EA.7000803@fsn.hu> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:34:02 +0100 From: Attila Nagy User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090817 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?windows-1251?Q?=CA=EE=ED=FC=EA=EE=E2_=C5=E2=E3=E5=ED=E8=E9?= References: <4F190F3F.7050302@fsn.hu> <1667449136.20120120091533@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <1667449136.20120120091533@yandex.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-rc@frebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding setfib support to rc.d/routing X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 07:34:05 -0000 Здравствуйте On 01/20/12 08:15, Коньков Евгений wrote: > Здравствуйте, Attila. > > Вы писали 20 января 2012 г., 8:52:47: > > AN> Hi, > > AN> Having multiple routing tables is a very nice and (was a) long awaited > AN> capability in FreeBSD. Having it since years is even more cool, because > AN> we can assume it's stable now. > AN> But not having infrastructure support for it sucks, this makes people > AN> hacking with rc.local or various scripts in various places. > > AN> There is a(t least one) PR about it: conf/145440, which proposes a > AN> standard method for setting up different FIBs in a seems to be logical > AN> way, which is compatible with the current single routing table method of > AN> static_routes. > > AN> Are there any objections about this PR? Is there something we can do to > AN> get it committed? > > I have a patch > http://kes.net.ua/softdev/fib_patch.html That tries to solve a different (the next one if you like) problem, and there is(are?) a PR for that too, with a similar approach. The above PR is about creating static routes for different FIBs, which is the first step.