From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 2 20:43:00 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@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 64EAB3D4; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 20:43:00 +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 D03C22229; Mon, 2 Sep 2013 20:42:59 +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 r82KgUUv036733 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Sep 2013 05:42:40 +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 r82KgSBS085354; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 05:42:29 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 05:41:45 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20130903.054145.729685298814952552.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: <521BA31C.5000807@delphij.net> References: <521B9A1B.7080908@freebsd.org> <521BA31C.5000807@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(Tue_Sep__3_05_41_45_2013_061)--" 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]); Tue, 03 Sep 2013 05:42:40 +0900 (JST) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-90.5 required=13.0 tests=CONTENT_TYPE_PRESENT, DIRECTOCNDYN,DYN_PBL,RCVD_IN_PBL,SPF_SOFTFAIL,USER_IN_WHITELIST, X_CHINESE_RELAY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on gatekeeper.allbsd.org Cc: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org, kpaasial@gmail.com, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 20:43:00 -0000 ----Security_Multipart(Tue_Sep__3_05_41_45_2013_061)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Xin Li wrote in <521BA31C.5000807@delphij.net>: de> > That has always been specifically not supported. default route de> > needs to be directly attached. in fact the routing tables only ever de> > deliver the 'next hop' de> de> Well, depends on whether the 'next hop' is an IP or an interface. For de> instance one can have a valid configuration that they have a static de> route of: de> de> 2607:5300:XXXX:XXXX:ff:ff:ff:ff -prefixlen 128 -interface em0 de> de> Then have 2607:5300:XXXX:XXXX:ff:ff:ff:ff as default router. de> de> This configuration is not possible with the current rc.d startup order. Ah, I see. I personally do not like this kind of configurations but it should be supported as a dirty workaround. The patch is correct, so please go ahead with it. -- Hiroki ----Security_Multipart(Tue_Sep__3_05_41_45_2013_061)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAlIk+AkACgkQTyzT2CeTzy27hACdGQ87Ml7IBvsa2h+rBaf3F8Mt VSYAoI7s+sRHhqgKKBANWX0npJLDoNc2 =IHF1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Tue_Sep__3_05_41_45_2013_061)----