Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:56:16 +0300 From: Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, delphij@delphij.net, d@delphij.net, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why default route is not installed last? Message-ID: <CA%2B7WWSfN1PJ-9h2Z6YtLvO7_yv4vESf4beY4RzyvpW-unkdLkg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net> <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> wrote: > Xin Li <delphij@delphij.net> wrote > in <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net>: > > 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. > > 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. > > -- Hiroki Isn't that the case when the default gateway address is on a different subnet than the address assigned to the interface? Such set ups are admittedly odd but they should be possible on FreeBSD as well as on other OSes. -Kimmo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2B7WWSfN1PJ-9h2Z6YtLvO7_yv4vESf4beY4RzyvpW-unkdLkg>