Subject: Re: proposed changes to system config files
To: Berndt Josef Wulf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Klaus Klein <email@example.com>
Date: 10/28/2001 22:58:30
Berndt Josef Wulf <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> The system in question is intended to act as a router for the
> local network. The interfaces are configure utilizing
> ifconfig.de0 and ifconfig.gif0. rc.conf is configured with the
> following options:
That's no surprise; if you have a look at /etc/rc.d/network you'll see
that a node designated `router' won't accept Router Advertisements ...
... and actually it doesn't even solicit them (even if you had set
that switch to YES). All this is intentional.
> The same setup without defaultroute6 defined didn't work. The link
> only came alive after explicit declaration of the defaultroute6.
So what's wrong about putting that route(8) invocation into the
particular interface's configuration file?