From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 28 20:20:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD61137B401 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 20:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6258143FB1 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 20:20:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4T3KDUp060555 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 20:20:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h4T3KDRZ060554; Wed, 28 May 2003 20:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 20:20:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200305290320.h4T3KDRZ060554@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Eric AUGE Subject: Re: bin/52758: bogus default IP route (netstat -rn/route add) handling/display. X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Eric AUGE List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 03:20:14 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/52758; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Eric AUGE To: Ruslan Ermilov Cc: Eric AUGE , bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/52758: bogus default IP route (netstat -rn/route add) handling/display. Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 05:13:53 +0200 (CEST) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 28 May 2003, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: ru >There's nothing unexpected here; route(8) displays non-contiguous ru >netmasks this way: key&netmask. The default route is the route ru >with both key and mask of all zeroes, by definition. When you ru >specify a third argument (netmask), it becomes non-default, but ru >rather a ``-net 0 -netmask ''. ok i didn't know about the output format, and i didn't know why i was believing that it did check if the next hop was within the address space of one the interfaces (physical or logical). thanks bringing this to me, i might have just missed it in route(8). Best Regards, Eric. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+1Xr0L/U5psk9l1gRAsgNAJ9DL/DNdyKjvi/dmc0OkNDyhm6vrACgntgC zfxWUYytTG/VFuldLToGcFA= =EKhN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----