On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:43:30PM +0200, Sebastian Benoit wrote:
> Denis Fondras(denis@openbsd.org) on 2018.05.24 17:57:19 +0200:
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 07:04:04AM -0400, David Higgs wrote:
> > > But shouldn???t the answer be the same, since I have a valid default route?
> > >
> >
> > It should but that's not how route(8) works for now :)
> >
> > Barely tested diff, assumes that no netmask means /128 (similar to IPv4 handling
> > where no netmask means /32)
>
> But it doesn't:
>
Well, my words didn't translate my thought.
$ route -n get 192.168.5.33
is equivalent to
$ route -n get 192.168.5.33/32
So :
$ route -n get 2001:db8::
should be equivalent to
$ route -n get 2001:db8::/128
By what rule should it stick to /64 ?
Though I agree we should always specify the mask length.
No comments:
Post a Comment