On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 10:58:47AM -0500, David Gilbert wrote: > This works on Linux ... and fails miserably on FreeBSD. I would like > to change this behaviour to either a) replace the route with the > interface route or b) know two routes for a destination and choose > one.
Have you tried filtering the route on Router B to ensure it doesn't get added in the first place as a workaround? Have you run 'route -nv monitor' during the process and observed what the sequence of events is as far as the routing socket is concerned? a) I'd be curious as to whether an RTM_ADD or an RTM_CHANGE is issued in this case. Strictly speaking, RTM_CHANGE shouldn't work, but it does... according to Keith Sklower's paper on the original 4.2BSD routing implementation, changing the destination/next-hop of a route isn't allowed. b) is the ideal behaviour but we can't implement until after 5.2-RELEASE is out the door. BMS _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
