On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote:
DM> is it OK that no warnings are given when one set the very same address on
DM> different interfaces? Example (tested on stable/7 and stable/8):
DM>
DM> Script started on Fri Jun 11 13:44:08 2010
DM>
DM> hamster# ifconfig vlan8 create vlan 8 vlandev em0
DM> hamster# ifconfig vlan8 10.5.5.9/30
DM> hamster# netstat -rn | grep '10\.5'
DM> 10.5.5.8/30 link#3 U 0 0 vlan8
DM> 10.5.5.9 link#3 UHS 0 0 lo0
DM> hamster# ifconfig vlan9 create vlan 9 vlandev em0
DM> hamster# ifconfig vlan9 10.5.5.9/30
DM> hamster# netstat -rn | grep '10\.5'
DM> 10.5.5.8/30 link#3 U 0 0 vlan8
DM> 10.5.5.9 link#3 UHS 1 0 lo0
DM> hamster# exit
DM>
DM> Script done on Fri Jun 11 13:46:24 2010
Well, one of my colleagues pointed me to the fact that inexclusive routes are
now possible (which possibly leads to the question why setting the address
which network route is learnt by external means, such as from routing daemon,
is still prohibited).
Bu then, another question: when someone set a situation like above, and then
destroys primary route (via shutting the interface down, deleting address, etc)
- the second one remains its ad ress, but routing entry will be deleted. Is it
really intended?
--
Sincerely,
D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN]
[ FreeBSD committer: marck@FreeBSD.org ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------