From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Oct 20 02:02:59 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135C216A4B3
	for <net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:02:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.svzserv.kemerovo.su (www.svzserv.kemerovo.su
	[213.184.65.80])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9AFA43F75
	for <net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 02:02:56 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from eugen@kuzbass.ru)
Received: from kuzbass.ru (kost [213.184.65.82])h9K92rs6016977
	for <net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:02:53 +0800 (KRAST)
	(envelope-from eugen@kuzbass.ru)
Message-ID: <3F93A4B5.E5DAF46@kuzbass.ru>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:02:45 +0800
From: Eugene Grosbein <eugen@kuzbass.ru>
Organization: SVZServ
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: ru,en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: net@freebsd.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: routed(8) problem with route aggregation
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:02:59 -0000

Hi!

It seems there is a bug in routed(8): it aggregates routes
in its RIPv2 responses even when /etc/gateways contains:

ripv2
no_ag
no_super_ag

rtquery -t dump always shows full RIP2 table so routed(8)
has full information. However, rtquery -n shows only small part
of RIP2 table when there is a default route with the same interface
as specific routes but default has smaller hopcount.
The worst of it is that is announces only default in such case.

Please explain if it is expected or I should fill a PR.

Eugene Grosbein