From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Sep  8 14:48:18 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 585DA16A4CF; Wed,  8 Sep 2004 14:48:18 +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 EB9C343D49; Wed,  8 Sep 2004 14:48:17 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from thomas@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: by melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 7C9DE2A42B; Wed,  8 Sep 2004 16:48:16 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:48:16 +0200
From: Thomas Quinot <thomas@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG>
Message-ID: <20040908144816.GJ22578@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org>
References: <200409081350.i88DoW4e093128@freefall.freebsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200409081350.i88DoW4e093128@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 14:48:18 -0000

* Ruslan Ermilov, 2004-09-08 :

>  This is a misconfiguration because you cannot expect two broadcast
>  interfaces configured with the same IP network to work.  The fact

Even if one of them is down??

>  If we change ifa_ifwith*() to ignore !IFF_UP interfaces, I suspect this
>  will break too many things.

I agree, which is why I suggested a different function, not a change to
the existing one (of course both the specific implementation and the
existing ifa_ifwith* could be wrappers around a single generic
function).

>  to set the interface of the route to the interface of its gateway (if
>  route is through the gateway (RTF_GATEWAY)).  This should be easy to
>  fix, but I don't have a time for this now.

Agreed.

Thomas.

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