From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Mon Jan 14 19:04:36 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92BA9148424F for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 19:04:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from hz.grosbein.net (hz.grosbein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:d12:604::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hz.grosbein.net", Issuer "hz.grosbein.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A895C711B7 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2019 19:04:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Received: from eg.sd.rdtc.ru (eg.sd.rdtc.ru [IPv6:2a03:3100:c:13:0:0:0:5]) by hz.grosbein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0EJ4Hxo039366 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 14 Jan 2019 20:04:18 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) X-Envelope-From: eugen@grosbein.net X-Envelope-To: nonesuch@longcount.org Received: from [10.58.0.4] ([10.58.0.4]) by eg.sd.rdtc.ru (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0EJ4Gw4072033 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 15 Jan 2019 02:04:17 +0700 (+07) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.net) Subject: Re: Removing an alias can remove routes ? To: Mark Saad References: <1a2f60f2-6f78-00d6-9287-eaf3408205fa@grosbein.net> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers From: Eugene Grosbein Message-ID: <8c73e93c-9da3-37a6-9e3a-27d2723c1ff6@grosbein.net> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 02:04:11 +0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOCAL_FROM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -2.3 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record * 2.6 LOCAL_FROM From my domains X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on hz.grosbein.net X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A895C711B7 X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=permerror (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of eugen@grosbein.net uses mechanism not recognized by this client) smtp.mailfrom=eugen@grosbein.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.10 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MX_INVALID(0.50)[greylisted]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[grosbein.net]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_PERMFAIL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.97)[-0.968,0]; IP_SCORE(-1.54)[ip: (-2.85), ipnet: 2a01:4f8::/29(-2.48), asn: 24940(-2.35), country: DE(-0.01)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:24940, ipnet:2a01:4f8::/29, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 19:04:36 -0000 15.01.2019 1:15, Mark Saad wrote: > That's what I was originally attempting to do . What I am now > wondering is; Should I follow the convention of the all alias ip in > the subnet > of the primary (non-alias) address should be /32 . Then the first > occurrence of a new subnet as an alias should have its real mask > and then all subsequent aliases of the new subnet be /32 or should all > aliases just be /32 ? Right.