Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 01:10:50 +0700 From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> Cc: Jan Bramkamp <crest@rlwinm.de>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782? Message-ID: <5A301BAA.8010509@grosbein.net> In-Reply-To: <201712121802.vBCI2KTc087491@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <201712121802.vBCI2KTc087491@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 13.12.2017 01:02, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >>> The whole maintain_loopback_route should be KILLED from the kernel, >>> it is simply the wrong thing to be doing. >> >> Only if you can supply alternative way to assign highest priority >> (administrative distance = 0) for "directly connected" routes. >> And ability to override dynamically received prefixes with direct >> interface address assignment. > > This is all done by correctly configured routing daemon > running in userland over the route socket. Do we have such daemon maintaining directly connected routed in the base system? > Only being doing that for 25+ years that way, why suddenly does the > kernel need to over ride what has already been done and working? I cannot speak for 25+ years but I can for 17+ while there was NO way in FreeBSD to assign an address like 192.168.0.1/24 to an interface when such prefix already was installed to the kernel by routing daemon. Pinning loopback prefixes solved this problem at last.help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5A301BAA.8010509>