From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 3 00:09:32 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5FD516A433; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 00:09:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ps@mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6408D43D5C; Sun, 3 Jul 2005 00:08:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ps@mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 01E8B5DB88; Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:07:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ps@mu.org Delivered-To: ps@mu.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [216.136.204.119]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 796B65C9BE for ; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:15:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from hub.freebsd.org (hub.freebsd.org [216.136.204.18]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E359556A3E; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:13:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org) Received: from hub.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 849CD16A52B; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:13:20 +0000 (GMT) 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 3183A16A4CE; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:13:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (Odin.AC.HMC.Edu [134.173.32.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C9A843D1D; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:13:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id iAC3DJGI004851; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:13:19 -0800 Received: (from brdavis@localhost) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0/Submit) id iAC3DIPO004850; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:13:18 -0800 From: Brooks Davis To: Max Laier Message-ID: <20041112031318.GC1809@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <200411112124.12616.max@love2party.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="f0KYrhQ4vYSV2aJu" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200411112124.12616.max@love2party.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Errors-To: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on elvis.mu.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: in.c autoadding prefix route X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 00:09:32 -0000 X-Original-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:13:18 -0800 X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 00:09:32 -0000 --f0KYrhQ4vYSV2aJu Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:24:05PM +0100, Max Laier wrote: > All, >=20 > I know I have sent this a couple of times before, but never got anywhere.= This=20 > time I am set to commit! >=20 > The attached patch (http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/in.c.patch) derived= from=20 > WIDE via OpenBSD in.c, rev 1.21 improves the handling of automatic prefix= =20 > routes. >=20 > Right now you can't have two legs into the same network. If you want to, = you=20 > must give on of the interfaces a host address only (netmask /32). This wa= y it=20 > is not possible to hand over the route if one of the interfaces is=20 > "removed" (however this is done in the special case). >=20 > The patch allows to add more than on IPv4 address with the same prefix. I= n the=20 > case that there is a route already, we leave it alone and add the new add= ress=20 > without the IFA_ROUTE flag. When we remove an address later on, that has = a=20 > route associated, we try to find an alternative address to use for the ro= ute=20 > and hand it over. >=20 > This is required for CARP, but should be helpful for other situations as = well. I have no objections so this change. Does this help or hurt our quest to be able to usefully bind to 0.0.0.0? It would be really nice if we could eventually do this so we could stop running bpf on 90+% of all machines just so we could use DHCP. -- Brooks --f0KYrhQ4vYSV2aJu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBlCpNXY6L6fI4GtQRAipzAKCdvYyPyE3Sts/yUbdDB+/4PKClMwCgh1Be nuaMa9WAlet2jsCi4/WCx/k= =p6N3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --f0KYrhQ4vYSV2aJu--