From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Sep  8 12:26:31 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id F242516A4CE; Wed,  8 Sep 2004 12:26:30 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org (melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org
	[82.225.155.84])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id AAB1243D53; Wed,  8 Sep 2004 12:26:30 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from thomas@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: by melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 2B9802A42B; Wed,  8 Sep 2004 14:26:29 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 14:26:29 +0200
From: Thomas Quinot <thomas@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20040908122628.GF20627@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org>
References: <200409081150.i88BoSUO079636@freefall.freebsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200409081150.i88BoSUO079636@freefall.freebsd.org>
X-message-flag: WARNING! Using Outlook can damage your computer.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: kern/71474: route lookup does not skip interfaces marked down
X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 12:26:31 -0000

* Ruslan Ermilov, 2004-09-08 :

>  But your test case only applies to P2P interfaces, when both ends
>  of two P2P interfaces share the same IP address.

No, this is not the case. Only the remote ends of the two interfaces
share the same IP address. I described that test case because using gif
interfaces makes it easier to reproduce, but I initially observed this
symptom with one bge and one Intel wireless (ndis) interface.

>  I do not see how this could apply to broadcast interfaces.

As follows. Consider a machine with two Ethernet interfaces I1 and I2.

ifconfig I1 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
ifconfig I1 down
ifconfig I2 192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.0
route add default 192.168.0.254

The default route will be set to 192.168.0.254 on I1, not on I2 as
expected.

Thomas.

-- 
    Thomas.Quinot@Cuivre.FR.EU.ORG