On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 13:28 -0600, David Young wrote: > > Why would you expect changing an IPv4 route to affect an IPv6 route or > > vice versa? > > I don't. I do expect for these two scripts to behave similarly in > their own domains, however: > > 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 > > *** *** *** > > ifconfig re0 alias 192.168.1.10/24 > ifconfig ral0 alias 192.168.1.20/24 > route change 192.168.1.0/24 -ifp ral0 > ifconfig re0 -alias 192.168.1.10/24 > ifconfig re0 alias 192.168.1.10/24 With the two patches they now do :) Well, there is the exception of the IPv6 fee1:: MACADDR UHL route bug but I'd say that's outside the scope of the initial topic. I also don't know enough about IPv6 to say if it's a bug or what part of the kernel/userland is to blame for it. Thanks Roy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part