Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 18:49:59 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Will Andrews <will@firepipe.net> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@freebsd.org>, Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CFR: FIB handling improvements Message-ID: <5214EFB7.7020708@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CADBaqmi6c7v8ojry8uViRi9tK18n8_RaDrP%2BUjvcmEN9guWm3w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CADBaqmi6c7v8ojry8uViRi9tK18n8_RaDrP%2BUjvcmEN9guWm3w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21.08.2013 17:42, Will Andrews wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working to port forward to FreeBSD/head, improvements made to FIB > handling by my colleagues Alan Somers and Justin Gibbs. > > Please review: http://people.freebsd.org/~will/fix-fib-issues.1.diff > > This patch includes fixes for several issues relating to FIBs: > > * Use of dhclient with non-zero FIBs. With this patch, it is possible > to use DHCP on a specific interface with a non-zero FIB and have it > work correctly with this rc.conf snippet: > > ifconfig_em1="SYNCDHCP" > dhclient_fib_em1=1 > > This part of the patch includes a XXX, because I am not sure whether > the dhclient rc.d script should manually set the FIB on the given > interface, or if it should be inferred via some other mechanism. > > * Always add loopback routes for non-zero FIBs, for both IPv4 and > IPv6. Arguably, this could be a policy issue, but it is currently > less-than-trivial to specify (in rc.conf) that a route needs to be > applied to every FIB. > > * Having two or more FIBs whose interfaces share the same prefix and > netmask. This involves adding fibnum arguments to ifa_ifwithnet() and > ifa_ifwithdstaddr(), and checking it within. > > * Setting the FIB on a network interface. rtinit1() looks it up via > the current process context, so we must be calling setfib(2) from > within ifconfig. > > * Creating & deleting loopback routes now works correctly for > non-default FIBs, by using the interface's FIB instead of always 0. > > Commits would be made on each of these issues separately, but since > they are all related, I thought it would be easier for others to > evaluate them with context. Fine with me and no objections. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5214EFB7.7020708>