Denis Fondras(de...@openbsd.org) on 2018.05.24 22:09:30 +0200: > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:43:30PM +0200, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > > Denis Fondras(de...@openbsd.org) on 2018.05.24 17:57:19 +0200: > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 07:04:04AM -0400, David Higgs wrote: > > > > But shouldn???t the answer be the same, since I have a valid default > > > > route? > > > > > > > > > > It should but that's not how route(8) works for now :) > > > > > > Barely tested diff, assumes that no netmask means /128 (similar to IPv4 > > > handling > > > where no netmask means /32) > > > > But it doesn't: > > > > Well, my words didn't translate my thought. > > $ route -n get 192.168.5.33 > is equivalent to > $ route -n get 192.168.5.33/32 > > So : > $ route -n get 2001:db8:: > should be equivalent to > $ route -n get 2001:db8::/128
yes > By what rule should it stick to /64 ? <joking>by the same unwritten rule that says 192.168.5 is a /24</joking> Existing hostname.if files and scripts might depend on it. Actually since the prefixlen argument only sets the correct prefixlen if it follows the ip, i know for sure that there are configurations out the where route add -inet6 -prefixlen 56 2a00:16a8:b:100:: ::1 -blackhole will configure a /64 route (because the mask set by prefixlenis overwritten (actually by the code you are changing there ;)). I once had the pleasure to fix quite a few of those, that went unnoticed (because who cares about -blackhole routes) until one bad day... With your diff that will be a /128 suddenly? I'm not totaly against it, but it at least requires a note in current.html. Maybe you should post your diff on tech@ for more review. > Though I agree we should always specify the mask length. the 1980s just called, they want their route(8) code back.
