Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:48:36 +0900 (JST) From: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> To: sem@semmy.ru, bra@fsn.hu, kes-kes@yandex.ru Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Adding setfib support to rc.d/routing Message-ID: <20120123.134836.1135493075127784763.hrs@allbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4F196D64.6020508@semmy.ru> References: <4F190F3F.7050302@fsn.hu> <4F196D64.6020508@semmy.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----Security_Multipart(Mon_Jan_23_13_48_36_2012_481)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sergey Matveychuk <sem@semmy.ru> wrote in <4F196D64.6020508@semmy.ru>: se> 20.01.2012 10:52, Attila Nagy wrote: se> > Hi, se> > se> > Having multiple routing tables is a very nice and (was a) long awaited se> > capability in FreeBSD. Having it since years is even more cool, se> > because se> > we can assume it's stable now. se> > But not having infrastructure support for it sucks, this makes people se> > hacking with rc.local or various scripts in various places. se> > se> > There is a(t least one) PR about it: conf/145440, which proposes a se> > standard method for setting up different FIBs in a seems to be logical se> > way, which is compatible with the current single routing table method se> > of se> > static_routes. se> > se> > Are there any objections about this PR? Is there something we can do se> > to se> > get it committed? se> > se> se> se> JFYI conf/132476 I'll take a look at these patches and try to merge. -- Hiroki ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Jan_23_13_48_36_2012_481)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAk8c5qQACgkQTyzT2CeTzy1n2wCeIR5YsSJTwnpbbeyNRKa9eN8F HXMAn3iyQrdydRwO+0nYE+ba0quM7Zek =Cr6V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Jan_23_13_48_36_2012_481)----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120123.134836.1135493075127784763.hrs>