Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:15:09 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_carp.c Message-ID: <20051026101319.A32255@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200510260557.j9Q5vZ7J076711@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200510260557.j9Q5vZ7J076711@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > Since carp(4) interfaces presently are kinda fake yet possess > IP addresses, mark them with LOOPBACK so that routing daemons > take them easy for link-state routing protocols. > > Reviewed by: glebius Be aware that several network protocols, including IPv4 and IPv6, have special-case handling for interfaces tagged as IFF_LOOPBACK. I don't know whether this is a problem or not, but it's something you might want to investigate. I've previously run into problems with if_disc because it's marked as IFF_LOOPBACK and IPv6 has tried to use it for things that are not appropriate with if_disc -- unfortunately, I don't remember the details. I think we may actually be in need of either a new flag, IFF_OKSODONTTREATTHISQUITELIKEANINTERFACE, or maybe a more reliable way for protocols to ask if an interface is a loopback interface or not. Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051026101319.A32255>