From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 26 11:06:50 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C975E19F for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:06:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5EE0286C for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:06:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r7QB6ox3066057 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:06:50 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id r7QB6oHm066055 for freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:06:50 GMT (envelope-from owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:06:50 GMT Message-Id: <201308261106.r7QB6oHm066055@freefall.freebsd.org> X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: gnats set sender to owner-bugmaster@FreeBSD.org using -f From: FreeBSD bugmaster To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Current problem reports assigned to freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:06:50 -0000 Note: to view an individual PR, use: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number). The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users. These represent problem reports covering all versions including experimental development code and obsolete releases. S Tracker Resp. Description -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o conf/180183 rc [rc.d] rc.d allows scripts without rcvar set to start o conf/179828 rc [rc.d] [PATCH] rc.d/syslogd link socket to /dev/log fa o conf/177217 rc [patch] rc.d/ddb -- squelch warning when ddb_enable=ye o conf/177089 rc ntpd startup script does not work well o conf/176347 rc [rc.conf] [patch] Add support for firewall deny lists o conf/176181 rc [rc.subr] rc.subr emitting warnings for non-defined xx o conf/175311 rc [patch] add "dump" fs type support to rc.d/dumpon o conf/175105 rc /etc/rc.d/* and more: syntax 'return_boolean_cmd && do o conf/175079 rc [rc.subr] [patch] rc.subr poorly handles recursive run o bin/173153 rc [rc.d] [patch] $netwait_ip should be more parallel o conf/172787 rc [rc.conf] FreeBSD 9.x broken alias syntax on vlan inte o conf/172532 rc [rc] [patch] service routing restart always fails o conf/169047 rc [rc.subr] [patch] /etc/rc.subr not checking some scrip p bin/168544 rc [patch] [rc]: addswap-mounted swapfiles cause panic on o conf/167566 rc [rc.d] [patch] ipdivert module loading vs. ipfw rc.d o o conf/166484 rc [rc] [patch] rc.initdiskless patch for different major o conf/165769 rc [rc][jai][ipv6] IPv6 Initialization on external iface o conf/164393 rc [rc.d] restarting netif with static addresses doesn't o conf/163508 rc [rc.subr] [patch] Add "enable" and "disable" commands o conf/163488 rc Confusing explanation in defaults/rc.conf o conf/163321 rc [rc.conf] [patch] allow _fib syntax in rc.conf o conf/162642 rc .sh scripts in /usr/local/etc/rc.d get executed, not s o conf/161107 rc [rc] stop_boot in mountcritlocal usage is incorrect. o conf/160403 rc [rc] [patch] concurrently running rc-scripts during bo o conf/160240 rc rc.d/mdconfig and mdconfig2 should autoset $_type to v o conf/159846 rc [rc.conf] routing_stop_inet6() logic doesn't handle ip o conf/158557 rc [patch] /etc/rc.d/pf broken messages o conf/158127 rc [patch] remount_optional option in rc.initdiskless doe o conf/153666 rc [rc.d][patch] mount filesystems from fstab over zfs da o conf/153200 rc post-boot /etc/rc.d/network_ipv6 start can miss neighb o conf/153123 rc [rc] [patch] add gsched rc file to automatically inser o conf/150474 rc [patch] rc.d/accounting: Add ability to set location o o conf/149867 rc [PATCH] rc.d script to manage multiple FIBS (kern opti o conf/149831 rc [PATCH] add support to /etc/rc.d/jail for delegating Z o conf/148656 rc rc.firewall(8): {oip} and {iip} variables in rc.firewa o conf/147685 rc [rc.d] [patch] new feature for /etc/rc.d/fsck o conf/147444 rc [rc.d] [patch] /etc/rc.d/zfs stop not called on reboot o conf/146053 rc [patch] [request] shutdown of jails breaks inter-jail o conf/145399 rc [patch] rc.d scripts are unable to start/stop programs o conf/145009 rc [patch] rc.subr(8): rc.conf should allow mac label con o conf/143637 rc [patch] ntpdate(8) support for ntp-servers supplied by o conf/143085 rc [patch] ftp-proxy(8) rc(8) with multiple instances a conf/142973 rc [jail] [patch] Strange counter init value in jail rc o conf/142434 rc [patch] Add cpuset(1) support to rc.subr(8) o conf/142304 rc rc.conf(5): mdconfig and mdconfig2 rc.d scripts lack e o conf/141909 rc rc.subr(8): [patch] add rc.conf.d support to /usr/loca o conf/141678 rc [patch] A minor enhancement to how /etc/rc.d/jail dete o conf/140440 rc [patch] allow local command files in rc.{suspend,resum o conf/140261 rc [patch] Improve flexibility of mdconfig2 startup scrip p conf/138208 rc [rc.d] [patch] Making rc.firewall (workstation) IPv6 a o conf/137271 rc [rc.d] Cannot update /etc/host.conf when root filesyst o conf/136624 rc [rc.d] sysctl variables for ipnat are not applied on b o conf/134918 rc [patch] rc.subr fails to detect perl daemons o conf/134660 rc [patch] rc-script for initializing ng_netflow+ng_ipfw o conf/134333 rc PPP configuration problem in the rc.d scripts in combi o conf/133890 rc [patch] sshd(8): add multiple profiles to the rc.d scr o conf/128299 rc [patch] /etc/rc.d/geli does not mount partitions using o conf/126392 rc [patch] rc.conf ifconfig_xx keywords cannot be escaped o conf/124747 rc [patch] savecore can't create dump from encrypted swap o conf/124248 rc [jail] [patch] add support for nice value for rc.d/jai o conf/123734 rc [patch] Chipset VIA CX700 requires extra initializatio o conf/123222 rc [patch] Add rtprio(1)/idprio(1) support to rc.subr(8). o conf/122968 rc [rc.d] /etc/rc.d/addswap: md swapfile multiplication a o conf/122477 rc [patch] /etc/rc.d/mdconfig and mdconfig2 are ignoring o conf/122170 rc [patch] [request] New feature: notify admin via page o o kern/121566 rc [nfs] [request] [patch] ethernet iface should be broug a conf/119874 rc [patch] "/etc/rc.d/pf reload" fails if there are macro o conf/119076 rc [patch] [rc.d] /etc/rc.d/netif tries to remove alias a o bin/118325 rc [patch] [request] new periodic script to test statuses f conf/118255 rc savecore never finding kernel core dumps (rcorder prob f conf/117935 rc [patch] ppp fails to start at boot because of missing f conf/113915 rc [ndis] [patch] ndis wireless driver fails to associate o conf/108589 rc rtsol(8) fails due to default ipfw rules o conf/106009 rc [ppp] [patch] [request] Fix pppoed startup script to p f conf/105689 rc [ppp] [request] syslogd starts too late at boot f conf/105145 rc [ppp] [patch] [request] add redial function to rc.d/pp f conf/104549 rc [patch] rc.d/nfsd needs special _find_processes functi o conf/102700 rc [geli] [patch] Add encrypted /tmp support to GELI/GBDE o conf/93815 rc [patch] Adds in the ability to save ipfw rules to rc.d f conf/92523 rc [patch] allow rc scripts to kill process after a timeo o conf/89870 rc [patch] [request] make netif verbose rc.conf toggle a conf/88913 rc [patch] wrapper support for rc.subr o conf/85819 rc [patch] script allowing multiuser mode in spite of fsc o kern/81006 rc ipnat not working with tunnel interfaces on startup o conf/77663 rc Suggestion: add /etc/rc.d/addnetswap after addcritremo o conf/73677 rc [patch] add support for powernow states to power_profi a conf/58939 rc [patch] dumb little hack for /etc/rc.firewall{,6} f conf/56934 rc [patch] rc.firewall rules for natd expect an interface f conf/13775 rc multi-user boot may hang in NIS environment 89 problems total. From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 26 11:39:05 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A350E1C4; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:39:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.allbsd.org (gatekeeper.allbsd.org [IPv6:2001:2f0:104:e001::32]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 154E72BE2; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:39:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alph.d.allbsd.org (p2049-ipbf1102funabasi.chiba.ocn.ne.jp [122.26.101.49]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.allbsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7QBcVEd036429 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:38:41 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) (authenticated bits=0) by alph.d.allbsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7QBcRsC020918; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:38:31 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:37:44 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org> To: d@delphij.net, delphij@delphij.net Subject: Re: Why default route is not installed last? From: Hiroki Sato In-Reply-To: <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net> References: <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net> X-PGPkey-fingerprint: BDB3 443F A5DD B3D0 A530 FFD7 4F2C D3D8 2793 CF2D X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 24.3 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="--Security_Multipart(Mon_Aug_26_20_37_44_2013_842)--" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.4 at gatekeeper.allbsd.org X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (mail.allbsd.org [133.31.130.32]); Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:38:41 +0900 (JST) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-90.6 required=13.0 tests=CONTENT_TYPE_PRESENT, DIRECTOCNDYN,DYN_PBL,RCVD_IN_PBL,SPF_SOFTFAIL,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on gatekeeper.allbsd.org Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:39:05 -0000 ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Aug_26_20_37_44_2013_842)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Xin Li 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 ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Aug_26_20_37_44_2013_842)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAlIbPggACgkQTyzT2CeTzy3s+QCdF+QZ29eOQQI7iuBQpBdUsxjt 67QAoN7iRbfoSo7qEzA2w2yolz7XRqp8 =SN+U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Aug_26_20_37_44_2013_842)---- From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 26 11:51:13 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FFFD7AF for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:51:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erwin@mail.droso.net) Received: from mail.droso.net (koala.droso.dk [213.239.220.246]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5113B2D0C for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:51:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.droso.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 40B217F68; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:51:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:51:05 +0200 From: Erwin Lansing To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why default route is not installed last? Message-ID: <20130826115104.GL83309@droso.dk> References: <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net> <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Q8BnQc91gJZX4vDc" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD/amd64 9.1-RELEASE User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:51:13 -0000 --Q8BnQc91gJZX4vDc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 08:37:44PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: > Xin Li wrote > in <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net>: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 The german hosting company Hetzner previously used a non-standard setup for IPv6 where the default gateway was not on the local subnet. One example to work around this linked here, more can be found by searching the web: http://blog.vx.sk/archives/33-FreeBSD-network-configuration-on-Hetzner-serv= ers.html Not sure all workaround in that article were needed, but the simplest solution was to define two static routes, with the last one in the list a default route. Hetzner has fixed the setup now, so one can use a standard rc config these days, but just to show that such weird setups do exist. Given that the default is also the last resort, it makes sense it's loaded last as well. Cheers, Erwin --=20 Erwin Lansing (o_ _o) http://droso.dk \\\_\ /_/// erwin@lansing.dk <____) (____> --Q8BnQc91gJZX4vDc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFSG0Eoqy9aWxUlaZARAqZLAKCIye96kMygfebq9EdUr3iACzICzQCfREfH 34X8k+0VUAZpRf0xyfSlf80= =uq/w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Q8BnQc91gJZX4vDc-- From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 26 11:56:17 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62FF794E; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:56:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kpaasial@gmail.com) Received: from mail-qe0-x230.google.com (mail-qe0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0351E2D30; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:56:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qe0-f48.google.com with SMTP id 1so1657905qec.21 for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 04:56:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=OaZTMCwXbvKj8f+xQLhTBpc05r9z8jMTnwNKb9yVeMs=; b=A9Jhr1SH8rdfnQcX6uxPevIQ1v9gwkE4wwNCZ/i1istmwrEl/L+FyGfgyaDqlOrmr5 6QIVDWuVJOhZlrCdNw+aW1Mf2bfsSUViBuQr18YGTwPsHLLJU7RPZE4Kgq/K2RD9Y61a nJC5oW2pRIpLMUus+Wm68r8YN7Nq9TF/iSql5WUiIIhN0GpqSArBwK9tPmdCHjwKc8VT N6sHMnYXjLOpt2gTlzJwRKRRZ8lPcELKaT4Sj6+mOgA7BwBC6jnmMWBtGf5skuDI2mua LD4OWIDvPB2famN4Vr/ExIK0LFkhiPJpeto3nZlblWB93HkvnGXzIlBZjFTc40EXW04R 66bw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.112.69 with SMTP id v5mr958548qap.91.1377518176119; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 04:56:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.5.195 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 04:56:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net> <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:56:16 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why default route is not installed last? From: Kimmo Paasiala To: Hiroki Sato Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, delphij@delphij.net, d@delphij.net, FreeBSD Net X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:56:17 -0000 On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Hiroki Sato wrote: > Xin Li 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. -Kimmo From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 26 12:31:19 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25373CEF; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:31:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lukasz@wasikowski.net) Received: from mail.wasikowski.net (mail.wasikowski.net [IPv6:2001:6a0:1cb::b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D73012FE1; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:31:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.wasikowski.net (mail.wasikowski.net [IPv6:2001:6a0:1cb::b]) by mail.wasikowski.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B1723FE; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:31:06 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at wasikowski.net Received: from mail.wasikowski.net ([91.204.91.44]) by mail.wasikowski.net (scan.wasikowski.net [91.204.91.44]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id GPT7r-kW50LL; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:31:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.138.150] (83-144-115-210.static.chello.pl [83.144.115.210]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.wasikowski.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CAB8C23FA; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:31:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <521B4A88.3030806@wasikowski.net> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:31:04 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBXxIVzaWtvd3NraQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erwin Lansing Subject: Re: Why default route is not installed last? References: <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net> <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org> <20130826115104.GL83309@droso.dk> In-Reply-To: <20130826115104.GL83309@droso.dk> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:31:19 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 W dniu 2013-08-26 13:51, Erwin Lansing pisze: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 08:37:44PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: >> 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. > The german hosting company Hetzner previously used a non-standard > setup for IPv6 where the default gateway was not on the local > subnet. One example to work around this linked here, more can be > found by searching the web: > http://blog.vx.sk/archives/33-FreeBSD-network-configuration-on-Hetzner-servers.html IIRC > OVH use something similar with IPv6 setup. - -- best regards, Lukasz Wasikowski -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlIbSogACgkQXlaUxx+udUWtegCfbxJWeHNC8/N6aiv2D05MaL8s xRoAoINq+ehTvQ8JHaTBmkcxJHzaFKx8 =i0bd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 26 18:10:54 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D902753C; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:10:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Received: from vps1.elischer.org (vps1.elischer.org [204.109.63.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8C682548; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:10:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Julian-MBP3.local (ppp121-45-245-177.lns20.per2.internode.on.net [121.45.245.177]) (authenticated bits=0) by vps1.elischer.org (8.14.6/8.14.6) with ESMTP id r7QIAeHe014036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:10:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <521B9A1B.7080908@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 02:10:35 +0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kimmo Paasiala Subject: Re: Why default route is not installed last? References: <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net> <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: delphij@delphij.net, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, FreeBSD Net X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:10:54 -0000 On 8/26/13 7:56 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Hiroki Sato wrote: >> Xin Li 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' > > -Kimmo > _______________________________________________ > 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" > > From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 26 18:49:03 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05738B16; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:49:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from delphij@delphij.net) Received: from anubis.delphij.net (anubis.delphij.net [IPv6:2001:470:1:117::25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C832B2787; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:49:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zeta.ixsystems.com (unknown [69.198.165.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by anubis.delphij.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52BED5D45; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:49:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=delphij.net; s=anubis; t=1377542941; bh=2GkMwHbiHN9Qzi0yTKk7eNMMAZZLrz3kwlr/i3uW3es=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=QDPPL+pekpTF1iBefBUO7CcruBk5cq1EO7pBRWQ9+AjbRZkeTZEMb2c3a1vlMoBiT s6uo9iPSCkrpVR6IOnshxTGlKquF+fm7T0DlUC46WjcbO1Xi4je4UzZ1iX0s9o6uWD BKS1LyITolGEpyx70MMWveqkqBkCEuYADvtm4ja8= Message-ID: <521BA31C.5000807@delphij.net> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:49:00 -0700 From: Xin Li Organization: The FreeBSD Project MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer Subject: Re: Why default route is not installed last? References: <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net> <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org> <521B9A1B.7080908@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <521B9A1B.7080908@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Kimmo Paasiala , freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, FreeBSD Net X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: d@delphij.net List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 18:49:03 -0000 -----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 >> wrote: >>> Xin Li 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 https://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSG6MbAAoJEG80Jeu8UPuzAYMH/2K+wa2I2jexZourxzPgH25X OWxsxZgAwd/rEbsbm/0r0ApzGLNm7WQaXaBuNk+u9G9DWOLSTh1M/axRDAez4vOC EJiOfMQxMXlK7uBuA+1cUUrFbrPN4bNaRKY4DvSMWocd3x9T2CrxGaT9Y2SO6Q2g 1x2xSH63MXxebFaaT7nXqLLfpT4IK7yCOWPSXatBdZyZXAZh2ePa7wP4JX/Ti4ON IFE6IQwOs9q+w8EiyzLMtoqpZTt882Zw8beDmKMj7On+yXsw48+ryZF54kVu8+Sz dEwdvuKlXWB8FVWRz5gYbAOePq3XqCLeOuMZ5b6eIiHwhlY184nw2A94ahqVRGE= =27i9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 27 00:30:54 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6991FF9F; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:30:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@rewt.org.uk) Received: from hosted.mx.as41113.net (abby.lhr1.as41113.net [91.208.177.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F301A2BCF; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:30:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jwhlaptop (unknown [91.208.177.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: lists@rewt.org.uk) by hosted.mx.as41113.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3cP9wh24Gdz63; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 01:30:43 +0100 (BST) From: "Joe Holden" To: , "'Julian Elischer'" References: <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net> <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org> <521B9A1B.7080908@freebsd.org> <521BA31C.5000807@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <521BA31C.5000807@delphij.net> Subject: RE: Why default route is not installed last? Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 01:30:34 +0100 Message-ID: <1e7801cea2bc$a60acc80$f2206580$@rewt.org.uk> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0 Thread-Index: AQGgX+Eylv9X6MbbhKK+2kmDsedzAQL7Aov4AjQVfu4C+Dvc8AGD+cxAmbdetHA= Content-Language: en-gb Cc: 'Kimmo Paasiala' , freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, 'FreeBSD Net' X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:30:54 -0000 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 > >> wrote: > >>> Xin Li 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 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" From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 28 22:16:09 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFFAD9D2; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:16:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 847892C2D; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:16:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r7SMG9xH028348; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:16:09 GMT (envelope-from linimon@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from linimon@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id r7SMG90U028347; Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:16:09 GMT (envelope-from linimon) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:16:09 GMT Message-Id: <201308282216.r7SMG90U028347@freefall.freebsd.org> To: linimon@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org From: linimon@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/181625: [patch] add rc.d/ script for freebsd-update X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:16:09 -0000 Synopsis: [patch] add rc.d/ script for freebsd-update Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-rc Responsible-Changed-By: linimon Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Aug 28 22:16:00 UTC 2013 Responsible-Changed-Why: Over to maintainer(s). http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=181625