From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 13 19:09:24 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08F34106566C for ; Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:09:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru) Received: from woozle.rinet.ru (woozle.rinet.ru [195.54.192.68]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E43C8FC15 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:09:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by woozle.rinet.ru (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o5DJ9L5J002285 for ; Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:09:21 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from marck@rinet.ru) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:09:21 +0400 (MSD) From: Dmitry Morozovsky To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) X-NCC-RegID: ru.rinet X-OpenPGP-Key-ID: 6B691B03 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.5 (woozle.rinet.ru [0.0.0.0]); Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:09:22 +0400 (MSD) Subject: Re: same addresses on different interfaces X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:09:24 -0000 On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: DM> is it OK that no warnings are given when one set the very same address on DM> different interfaces? Example (tested on stable/7 and stable/8): DM> DM> Script started on Fri Jun 11 13:44:08 2010 DM> DM> hamster# ifconfig vlan8 create vlan 8 vlandev em0 DM> hamster# ifconfig vlan8 10.5.5.9/30 DM> hamster# netstat -rn | grep '10\.5' DM> 10.5.5.8/30 link#3 U 0 0 vlan8 DM> 10.5.5.9 link#3 UHS 0 0 lo0 DM> hamster# ifconfig vlan9 create vlan 9 vlandev em0 DM> hamster# ifconfig vlan9 10.5.5.9/30 DM> hamster# netstat -rn | grep '10\.5' DM> 10.5.5.8/30 link#3 U 0 0 vlan8 DM> 10.5.5.9 link#3 UHS 1 0 lo0 DM> hamster# exit DM> DM> Script done on Fri Jun 11 13:46:24 2010 Well, one of my colleagues pointed me to the fact that inexclusive routes are now possible (which possibly leads to the question why setting the address which network route is learnt by external means, such as from routing daemon, is still prohibited). Bu then, another question: when someone set a situation like above, and then destroys primary route (via shutting the interface down, deleting address, etc) - the second one remains its ad ress, but routing entry will be deleted. Is it really intended? -- Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] [ FreeBSD committer: marck@FreeBSD.org ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------