From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 2 11:33:29 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50F2C16A41C for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:33:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 979D743D49 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 11:33:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 56888 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2005 11:27:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) ([62.48.0.53]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 2 Jun 2005 11:27:41 -0000 Message-ID: <429EEE8C.86657ED1@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 13:33:32 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Li, Qing" References: <48D44BB27BDE3840BDF18E59CB169A5C010AF780@bcs-mail3.internal.cacheflow.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: issue with route X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 11:33:29 -0000 "Li, Qing" wrote: > > > When I issued the following command by accident today: > > route add default -inet6 fe80:20d:56ff:fe8d:d4b0%fxp0 > > The netstat shows the following: > > Internet: > Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif > Expire > default fe80:20d:56ff:fe8d:d4b0%fxp0 UGS 0 > 0 fxp0 > 10.9.44/24 link#1 U 1 0 fxp0 > 10.9.44.175 127.0.0.1 UGHS 0 0 lo0 > 127.0.0.1 link#4 UH 1 4 lo0 > > So I went ahead and issued > > route add 10.1.1.1 -inet6 fe80::1%fxp0 > > Internet: > Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif > Expire > default fe80:20d:56ff:fe8d:d4b0%fxp0 UGS 0 > 0 fxp0 > 10.1.1.1 fe80::1%fxp0 UGHS 0 0 fxp0 > 10.9.44/24 link#1 U 1 0 fxp0 > 10.9.44.175 127.0.0.1 UGHS 0 0 lo0 > 127.0.0.1 link#4 UH 1 4 lo0 > > I verified this behavior on both FreeBSD 5.4 Release and 6.0-CURRENT. Looks very strange indeed. > I think this behavior is probably not intended and should be treated > as a bug. I did a quick patch in sys/net/route.c > (it's just as easy in sbin/route.c). Unless this causes or supposed to cause some kind of automagic IPv4 in IPv6 encapsulation? Can you check out if this is not the case (RFC references, KAME folks)? > ------------- > heavygear# cvs diff route.c > Index: route.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/net/route.c,v retrieving revision 1.108 > diff > -r1.108 route.c > 746c747,748 > < if ((flags & RTF_GATEWAY) && !gateway) > --- > > if (flags & RTF_GATEWAY) { > > if (!gateway) > 747a750,752 > > if (dst && (dst->sa_family != gateway->sa_family)) > > senderr(EPERM); > > } > ------------- Please post unified diffs, they are far easier to read for humans. > After the patch, > > ------------- > heavygear# route add 10.1.1.1 -inet6 fe80::1%fxp0 > route: writing to routing socket: Operation not permitted EINVAL might be a more appropriate error code. -- Andre