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. > > > 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. > The fact that IPv6 (sort of) works, now, reinforces my hunch that > your change to in.c was unnecessary, because your change to rtsock.c > was sufficient. Pretty sure it's necessary, but when I can build a working kernel without my patch I'll let you know for sure. Thanks Roy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part