From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 15 16:30:58 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FA2E16A402 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:30:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2A5A13C480 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:30:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 60110 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2007 16:01:04 -0000 Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (HELO [127.0.0.1]) ([62.48.2.2]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 15 Mar 2007 16:01:04 -0000 Message-ID: <45F974BE.5050404@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:30:54 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gleb Smirnoff , "Bruce M. Simpson" , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org, Vladimir Ivanov , bug-followup@FreeBSD.org References: <20070314115916.GB2713@cell.sick.ru> <45F81C0D.2000608@FreeBSD.org> <20070314161023.GF2713@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <20070314161023.GF2713@cell.sick.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: kern/106722: [net] [patch] ifconfig may not connect an interface to known network X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 16:30:58 -0000 Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > I was afraid that this would raise an argument on multipath routing. Let's > temporary do not speak about multipath but just decide what is the correct > way to remove conflicting routes when we are assigning an IP prefix to a > local interface? IMO when configuring a interface with an IP address and network it should kick out previous host and/or network routes matching it. Unless those are from locally configured interfaces, then it should reject the new attempt. The current behavior is a big problem when running routing daemons like OpenBGPD or OpenOSPFD. If you add a second router to a subnet and that router receives that subnet already via the routing protocol you can't configure the interface. For the routing daemon a RTM_CHANGE in the replacement case is fine. -- Andre