Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:25:40 -0700 From: Maksim Yevmenkin <emax@freebsd.org> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r238622 - head/etc/rc.d Message-ID: <CAFPOs6rHmMPca7Xzhng82b17RPZObCCP64x%2BHPEBvf7%2BwK3pnQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120803.055554.1380323232583218022.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <201207191536.q6JFabOR094467@svn.freebsd.org> <20120803.055554.1380323232583218022.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> wrote: > Maksim Yevmenkin <emax@FreeBSD.org> wrote > in <201207191536.q6JFabOR094467@svn.freebsd.org>: > > em> Author: emax > em> Date: Thu Jul 19 15:36:36 2012 > em> New Revision: 238622 > em> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/238622 > em> > em> Log: > em> Allow to specify no source-address-selection policy > em> > em> MFC after: 1 week > em> > em> Modified: > em> head/etc/rc.d/ip6addrctl > em> > em> Modified: head/etc/rc.d/ip6addrctl > em> ============================================================================== > em> --- head/etc/rc.d/ip6addrctl Thu Jul 19 14:43:46 2012 (r238621) > em> +++ head/etc/rc.d/ip6addrctl Thu Jul 19 15:36:36 2012 (r238622) > em> @@ -83,6 +83,9 @@ ip6addrctl_start() > em> # Backward compatibility when ipv6_prefer=NO > em> ip6addrctl_prefer_ipv4 > em> ;; > em> + [Nn][Oo][Nn][Ee]) > em> + ip6addrctl flush >/dev/null 2>&1 > em> + ;; > em> *) > em> warn "\$ip6addrctl_policy is invalid: ${ip6addrctl_policy}. " \ > em> " \"ipv4_prefer\" is used instead." > > Just curious, why ip6addrctl_enable=NO is not enough here? I would > like to eliminate yes/no/none keywords in $ip6addrctl_policy because > such keywords are vague. If we need the empty rule for some reason, > "empty" would be a better name for the policy, I think. i just wanted to make sure that there is a way to absolutely make sure that there is no default address selection policy installed. the wide know rule 9 of rfc 3484 is really messing things up for dns-style load balancing. even when ipv6 is not used. personally, i don't think that "none" is unreasonable word for "ip6addrctl_policy", but i don't feel particularly strongly about it. any name will do as long as original functionality is preserved. thanks, max
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFPOs6rHmMPca7Xzhng82b17RPZObCCP64x%2BHPEBvf7%2BwK3pnQ>