On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 11:01 -0600, David Young wrote: > On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 11:33:33AM +0000, Roy Marples wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-12-24 at 12:58 -0600, David Young wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 09:37:07AM +0000, Roy Marples wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 18:40 -0600, David Young wrote: > > > > > How does this behavior of IPv4 ifaddrs compare with IPv6? > > > > > > > > A quick test shows that IPv6 behaves correctly here. > > > > > > > > ifconfig bge0 inet6 fee1:: alias > > > > ifconfig iwi0 inet6 fee1:: alias > > > > route change -net -inet6 fee1::/64 -ifp iwi0 > > > > ifconfig bge0 inet6 fee1:: -alias > > > > ifconfig bge0 inet6 fee1:: alias > > > > > > Did IPv6 work correctly prior to your change to rtsock.c? > > > > From memory, yes it did as the inet6 does does not appear to use > > IFA_ROUTE. But I don't have a non-patched kernel handy to test with just > > yet. > > I see IFA_ROUTE all over netinet6/in6.c. :-) What I meant to say is that I don't see IFA_ROUTE assigned in the same way for IPv6 as for IPv4. The only assignment in in6.c is for p2p or loopback according to the comments. However, the above test works fine on an unpatched kernel for IPv6 which suggests the correct fix for IPv4 is indeed in in.c. > > > > > However the > > > > fee1:: MACADDR UHL > > > > route is not changed which could be a bug. > > > > > > Does the corresponding IPv4 route change? > > > > Why should it? All the above commands referenced -inet6 and should not > > affect IPv4 in any way or form. > > What I meant was, when you run the corresponding IPv4 script, does > a IPv4 route corresponding to that IPv6 route change, or not? > > IPv4 and IPv6 should work quite a lot alike in order to avoid > surprises. Why would you expect changing an IPv4 route to affect an IPv6 route or vice versa? Thanks Roy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part