From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Dec 7 17:30:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA12207 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:30:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers) Received: from alpo.whistle.com (alpo.whistle.com [207.76.204.38]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA12192; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:30:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from julian@whistle.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by alpo.whistle.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA27708; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:22:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from UNKNOWN(), claiming to be "current1.whistle.com" via SMTP by alpo.whistle.com, id smtpd027706; Sun Dec 7 17:22:17 1997 Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:19:50 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer To: Eivind Eklund cc: Brian Somers , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Route behaviour (was Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/ppp command.c ppp.8 route.c) In-Reply-To: <8690twpu17.fsf@bitbox.follo.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk I had changes that made the outgoing packets take the first IP address of the interface if there was no address already bound.. don't know what happenned to them. On 8 Dec 1997, Eivind Eklund wrote: > Brian Somers writes: > > > brian 1997/12/06 20:09:16 PST > > > > Modified files: > > usr.sbin/ppp command.c ppp.8 route.c > > Log: > > Only allow one arg to `delete' - the mask & gateway aren't necessary. > > Delete AF_LINK routes as well as AF_INET. > > Allow the word `default' as the arg to `delete' or in place of the > > first two args (dest & netmask) to `add'. > > Accept INTERFACE as the third arg to `add'. > > > > You can now say `add default interface' to create a default route > > through the tun interface. It's reported that subsequent bind()s > > will bind to a broadcast address and not to the address currently > > assigned to the tun device - this is the first step towards > > supporting that first connection that was around from before the > > dynamic IP negotiation.... > > I've been thinking a bit more about it, and now I consider this > binding a bug. With an interface route to an interface with no > assigned address, we're actually sending packets onto the network that > hasn't got a legit source address. > > This works for the single case where there is a NAT engine at the > other end of that link, but that is also the _only_ case it works for. > > I'm still a bit uncertain about what would be the best approach - > probably binding to another interface in the machine. That's weird > too, but probably less surprising never the less > > What do other people think? Is this feasible given the way routing is > implemented in the FreeBSD kernel? > > Eivind. >