Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 20:30:58 +0100 (CET) From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net Cc: eugen@grosbein.net, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, crest@rlwinm.de Subject: Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782? Message-ID: <20171212.203058.74686940.sthaug@nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: <201712121833.vBCIXXXf087628@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <5A301BAA.8010509@grosbein.net> <201712121833.vBCIXXXf087628@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > >>> 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? > > I believe we do, though it uses a fairly rare protocol now a days, > called ripv2. man routed Both bird and quagga maintain these > routes as well. I believe that openospfd does too. In fact > I dont know of a routing daemon that does not try to maintain > these. > > Also why does this need to ba a "in the base system"? Certainly > sticking a route decision in the kernel that defeats any attempt > to change it makes that pointless anyway. Being a router jockey at my daytime job I can symphatize with both views here. - I *expect* that a route pointing out an interface will disappear when that interface goes down, and reappear again when the interface comes back up. This behavior is extremely consistent across all the major router brands. - The standard FreeBSD behavior where a static route (added by a manual "route add -net ...") does *not* reappear when an interface comes back up, simply feels incredibly wrong and inconsistent. But I also want the kernel to handle packet *forwarding*, and not routing policy. I guess I'm looking for a a simplified routed which will handle my static routes and can be turned on with a only an xxx_enable in rc.conf and then basically forgotten. If I want something more complicated (typically BGP) I'll install quagga. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171212.203058.74686940.sthaug>