From owner-freebsd-net  Mon Jan 15 17:52:50 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63AC37B69F
	for <net@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kiwi.itojun.org (localhost.itojun.org [127.0.0.1])
	by coconut.itojun.org (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id KAA03814;
	Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:52:28 +0900 (JST)
To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@aciri.org>
Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: rizzo's message of Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:47:20 PST.
      <200101160147.f0G1lKG02966@iguana.aciri.org>
X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD  90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2
Subject: Re: annoying bug on routing tables...
From: itojun@iijlab.net
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:52:28 +0900
Message-ID: <3812.979609948@coconut.itojun.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

>> 	IMHO IPv4 code is not very friendly with multiple addresses on single
>> 	interface.  i believe the following items are assumed for the use
>> 	of rt_ifa.
>but it seems that when you change interface address the call to
>in_ifscrub() should take care of removing the old address... which
>maybe is not occurring for some reason ?

	rtinit() do not seem to take care about cloned routes.

itojun


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message