Denis Fondras(denis@openbsd.org) on 2018.05.24 22:09:30 +0200:
> 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
yes
> By what rule should it stick to /64 ?
<joking>by the same unwritten rule that says 192.168.5 is a /24</joking>
Existing hostname.if files and scripts might depend on it.
Actually since the prefixlen argument only sets the correct prefixlen if it
follows the ip, i know for sure that there are configurations out the where
route add -inet6 -prefixlen 56 2a00:16a8:b:100:: ::1 -blackhole
will configure a /64 route (because the mask set by prefixlenis overwritten
(actually by the code you are changing there ;)). I once had the pleasure to
fix quite a few of those, that went unnoticed (because who cares about
-blackhole routes) until one bad day...
With your diff that will be a /128 suddenly?
I'm not totaly against it, but it at least requires a note in current.html.
Maybe you should post your diff on tech@ for more review.
> Though I agree we should always specify the mask length.
the 1980s just called, they want their route(8) code back.
No comments:
Post a Comment