From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Wed Feb 28 19:40:11 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6F1F40070 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 19:40:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A71B89B69; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 19:40:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: from pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id w1SJe23V021562; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 11:40:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id w1SJe2bC021561; Wed, 28 Feb 2018 11:40:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <201802281940.w1SJe2bC021561@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix for IPv4 subnet route migration In-Reply-To: To: Ryan Stone Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 11:40:02 -0800 (PST) CC: freebsd-net , phabric-admin@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 19:40:11 -0000 > Currently, the FreeBSD stack gets itself into a bizarre state if you > try to change the source IP for a subnet route (yes, this implies > using two IPs on the same subnet on a system. Yes, I'm aware this is > a Bad Idea(TM). Unfortunately I have a customer that insists on this > configuration) > > You can see the review description for all of the gory details. IPv6 > is not affected by the issue so I only had to fix IPv4. The review is > here: > > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14547 > > If anybody is interested in reviewing this fix, please subscribe > yourself to the review. Thanks! Herald for umbralla Network seems to be broken, this review touches sys/netinet code which should of tripped that rule. Can someone investigate? I have manually subscribed. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org