From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 26 11:39:05 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A350E1C4; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:39:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.allbsd.org (gatekeeper.allbsd.org [IPv6:2001:2f0:104:e001::32]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 154E72BE2; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:39:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alph.d.allbsd.org (p2049-ipbf1102funabasi.chiba.ocn.ne.jp [122.26.101.49]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.allbsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7QBcVEd036429 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:38:41 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) (authenticated bits=0) by alph.d.allbsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r7QBcRsC020918; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:38:31 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:37:44 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20130826.203744.2304902117196747104.hrs@allbsd.org> To: d@delphij.net, delphij@delphij.net Subject: Re: Why default route is not installed last? From: Hiroki Sato In-Reply-To: <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net> References: <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net> X-PGPkey-fingerprint: BDB3 443F A5DD B3D0 A530 FFD7 4F2C D3D8 2793 CF2D X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 24.3 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="--Security_Multipart(Mon_Aug_26_20_37_44_2013_842)--" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.4 at gatekeeper.allbsd.org X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (mail.allbsd.org [133.31.130.32]); Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:38:41 +0900 (JST) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-90.6 required=13.0 tests=CONTENT_TYPE_PRESENT, DIRECTOCNDYN,DYN_PBL,RCVD_IN_PBL,SPF_SOFTFAIL,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on gatekeeper.allbsd.org Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:39:05 -0000 ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Aug_26_20_37_44_2013_842)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Xin Li wrote in <521670FF.6080407@delphij.net>: de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- de> Hash: SHA512 de> de> Hi, de> de> I've noticed that we do not install default route last (after other de> static routes). I think we should probably install it last, since the de> administrator may legitimately configure a static route (e.g. this de> IPv6 address goes to this interface) that is required by the default de> route. Do you have an example? I could imagine some theoretically but personally think that the default route which depends on a static route is one which should be avoided. -- Hiroki ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Aug_26_20_37_44_2013_842)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAlIbPggACgkQTyzT2CeTzy3s+QCdF+QZ29eOQQI7iuBQpBdUsxjt 67QAoN7iRbfoSo7qEzA2w2yolz7XRqp8 =SN+U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Mon_Aug_26_20_37_44_2013_842)----