Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:49:00 -0700 From: Xin Li <delphij@delphij.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial@gmail.com>, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, d@delphij.net, FreeBSD Net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why default route is not installed last? Message-ID: <521BA31C.5000807@delphij.net> In-Reply-To: <521B9A1B.7080908@freebsd.org> References: <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net> <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org> <CA%2B7WWSfN1PJ-9h2Z6YtLvO7_yv4vESf4beY4RzyvpW-unkdLkg@mail.gmail.com> <521B9A1B.7080908@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 08/26/13 11:10, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 8/26/13 7:56 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: >> 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. > That has always been specifically not supported. default route > needs to be directly attached. in fact the routing tables only ever > deliver the 'next hop' Well, depends on whether the 'next hop' is an IP or an interface. For instance one can have a valid configuration that they have a static route of: 2607:5300:XXXX:XXXX:ff:ff:ff:ff -prefixlen 128 -interface em0 Then have 2607:5300:XXXX:XXXX:ff:ff:ff:ff as default router. This configuration is not possible with the current rc.d startup order. Cheers, - -- Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> https://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJSG6MbAAoJEG80Jeu8UPuzAYMH/2K+wa2I2jexZourxzPgH25X OWxsxZgAwd/rEbsbm/0r0ApzGLNm7WQaXaBuNk+u9G9DWOLSTh1M/axRDAez4vOC EJiOfMQxMXlK7uBuA+1cUUrFbrPN4bNaRKY4DvSMWocd3x9T2CrxGaT9Y2SO6Q2g 1x2xSH63MXxebFaaT7nXqLLfpT4IK7yCOWPSXatBdZyZXAZh2ePa7wP4JX/Ti4ON IFE6IQwOs9q+w8EiyzLMtoqpZTt882Zw8beDmKMj7On+yXsw48+ryZF54kVu8+Sz dEwdvuKlXWB8FVWRz5gYbAOePq3XqCLeOuMZ5b6eIiHwhlY184nw2A94ahqVRGE= =27i9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?521BA31C.5000807>