Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 27 Aug 2013 01:30:34 +0100
From:      "Joe Holden" <lists@rewt.org.uk>
To:        <d@delphij.net>, "'Julian Elischer'" <julian@freebsd.org>
Cc:        'Kimmo Paasiala' <kpaasial@gmail.com>, freebsd-rc@freebsd.org, 'FreeBSD Net' <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Subject:   RE: Why default route is not installed last?
Message-ID:  <1e7801cea2bc$a60acc80$f2206580$@rewt.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <521BA31C.5000807@delphij.net>
References:  <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net> <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org> <CA%2B7WWSfN1PJ-9h2Z6YtLvO7_yv4vESf4beY4RzyvpW-unkdLkg@mail.gmail.com> <521B9A1B.7080908@freebsd.org> <521BA31C.5000807@delphij.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
A whole extra line is required in rc.conf to make that situation work and
since it is an edge case and doesn't apply in 99% of uses it really
shouldn't be catered for... but what do I know?  There has been a few insane
changes recently ;)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> net@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Xin Li
> Sent: 26 August 2013 19:49
> To: Julian Elischer
> Cc: Kimmo Paasiala; Hiroki Sato; freebsd-rc@freebsd.org; d@delphij.net;
> FreeBSD Net
> Subject: Re: Why default route is not installed last?
>
> -----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+wa2I2jexZourxzPgH
> 25X
> OWxsxZgAwd/rEbsbm/0r0ApzGLNm7WQaXaBuNk+u9G9DWOLSTh1M/axRD
> Aez4vOC
> EJiOfMQxMXlK7uBuA+1cUUrFbrPN4bNaRKY4DvSMWocd3x9T2CrxGaT9Y2SO
> 6Q2g
> 1x2xSH63MXxebFaaT7nXqLLfpT4IK7yCOWPSXatBdZyZXAZh2ePa7wP4JX/Ti4O
> N
> IFE6IQwOs9q+w8EiyzLMtoqpZTt882Zw8beDmKMj7On+yXsw48+ryZF54kVu8
> +Sz
> dEwdvuKlXWB8FVWRz5gYbAOePq3XqCLeOuMZ5b6eIiHwhlY184nw2A94ahq
> VRGE=
> =27i9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1e7801cea2bc$a60acc80$f2206580$>