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--