From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 3 08:35:00 2004 Return-Path: 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 20C4D16A4CF for ; Sat, 3 Jul 2004 08:35:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch [62.48.0.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56FD343D41 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 2004 08:34:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 21166 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2004 08:34:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) ([62.48.0.54]) (envelope-sender ) by mailtoaster1.pipeline.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 3 Jul 2004 08:34:58 -0000 Message-ID: <40E66FB2.AE0FA833@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 10:34:58 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce M Simpson References: <20040703080900.GL97102@empiric.dek.spc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/38554: changing interface ipaddress doesn't seem to work X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 08:35:00 -0000 Bruce M Simpson wrote: > > Please review the attached patch (which is a reworking of Archie's > patch for -CURRENT). When the underlying IP address is changed, > wildcard-bound UDP sockets which are temporarily bound locally for UDP socket which are not bound to a particular IP address would do the right thing already? I thought so. > a sendto() (by userland apps such as ntp, syslogd etc) will begin > using the new IP address, whilst apps using TCP (ssh, Quagga bgpd) will > error out with EADDRINUSE. This error is misleading. The address is gone, not in use. Isn't there a better fit? > I would appreciate any feedback on our adopting this behaviour (which > strikes me as similar to that of Solaris and a few other OSes). I have only quickly glanced over it, but it sounds the right thing to do. -- Andre