Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Thomas Steen Rasmussen
On 12/12/2017 08:56 AM, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > On 12.12.2017 09:31, Thomas Steen Rasmussen wrote: > >> After upgrading to r326782 I get the following error when trying to >> delete the lo0 entry (I have an rc.d script to do it): >> >> $ sudo route delete 185.96.180.10 >> route: writing to routi

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Eugene Grosbein
On 12.12.2017 16:44, Thomas Steen Rasmussen wrote: > On 12/12/2017 08:56 AM, Eugene Grosbein wrote: >> On 12.12.2017 09:31, Thomas Steen Rasmussen wrote: >> >>> After upgrading to r326782 I get the following error when trying to >>> delete the lo0 entry (I have an rc.d script to do it): >>> >>> $

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Jan Bramkamp
On 12.12.17 03:31, Thomas Steen Rasmussen wrote: Hello list :) "Something" which changes how routing works has landed in 11-STABLE between r325235 and r326782. Until now I have had a script which deletes routing table entries which point to lo0, in order to keep traffic from "shortcutting" over

[Bug 224247] [patch] RFC 6980 requires to drop fragmented IPv6 neighbour discovery

2017-12-12 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224247 l...@donnerhacke.de changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #188720|0 |1 is obsolete|

[Bug 224247] [patch] RFC 6980 requires to drop fragmented IPv6 neighbour discovery

2017-12-12 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224247 --- Comment #4 from l...@donnerhacke.de --- Thank your for the pointer to functionality duplication in other modules. I moved the flag-setting to the fragment header removal code (which is more appropriate anyway). This code is more likely

[Bug 224218] Kernel panic in SCTP/IpV6 server mode

2017-12-12 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=224218 --- Comment #23 from Michael Tuexen --- (In reply to Shreesh Holla from comment #22) I tried to install gnome3 and xorg according to the FreeBSD handbook, but gnome doesn't start. It complains about not finding the default font "fixed". I

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
> On 12/12/2017 08:56 AM, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > > On 12.12.2017 09:31, Thomas Steen Rasmussen wrote: > > > >> After upgrading to r326782 I get the following error when trying to > >> delete the lo0 entry (I have an rc.d script to do it): > >> > >> $ sudo route delete 185.96.180.10 > >> route:

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ] > On 12.12.17 03:31, Thomas Steen Rasmussen wrote: > > Hello list :) > > > > "Something" which changes how routing works has landed in 11-STABLE > > between r325235 and r326782. > > > > Until now I have had a script which deletes routing table entries

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Eugene Grosbein
12.12.2017 22:15, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > The FreeBSD kernel now has a BIGGER bug, it now totally ignores the > user's specified routing policy and makes routing policy decissions > of its own, thinking that it knows what is best for the user. > > The whole maintain_loopback_route should be KIL

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
[ Charset windows-1252 unsupported, converting... ] > 12.12.2017 22:15, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > The FreeBSD kernel now has a BIGGER bug, it now totally ignores the > > user's specified routing policy and makes routing policy decissions > > of its own, thinking that it knows what is best for

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Eugene Grosbein
On 13.12.2017 01:02, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >>> The whole maintain_loopback_route should be KILLED from the kernel, >>> it is simply the wrong thing to be doing. >> >> Only if you can supply alternative way to assign highest priority >> (administrative distance = 0) for "directly connected" route

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
> On 13.12.2017 01:02, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > >>> The whole maintain_loopback_route should be KILLED from the kernel, > >>> it is simply the wrong thing to be doing. > >> > >> Only if you can supply alternative way to assign highest priority > >> (administrative distance = 0) for "directly co

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread sthaug
> > >>> The whole maintain_loopback_route should be KILLED from the kernel, > > >>> it is simply the wrong thing to be doing. > > >> > > >> Only if you can supply alternative way to assign highest priority > > >> (administrative distance = 0) for "directly connected" routes. > > >> And ability to o

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Eugene Grosbein
On 13.12.2017 01:33, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >>> This is all done by correctly configured routing daemon >>> running in userland over the route socket. >> >> Do we have such daemon maintaining directly connected routed in the base >> system? > > I believe we do, though it uses a fairly rare prot

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
> > > >>> The whole maintain_loopback_route should be KILLED from the kernel, > > > >>> it is simply the wrong thing to be doing. > > > >> > > > >> Only if you can supply alternative way to assign highest priority > > > >> (administrative distance = 0) for "directly connected" routes. > > > >> And

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Eugene Grosbein
On 13.12.2017 02:30, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > But I also want the kernel to handle packet *forwarding*, and not > routing policy. I guess I'm looking for a a simplified routed which > will handle my static routes and can be turned on with a only an > xxx_enable in rc.conf and then basically forg

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Eugene Grosbein
On 13.12.2017 03:00, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >> If I want something more complicated (typically BGP) I'll install >> quagga. > > One of the problems now is that these programs are fighting with > the kernel over these routes and just fill your logs with lots > of useless messages and you can not

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
> On 13.12.2017 02:30, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > > But I also want the kernel to handle packet *forwarding*, and not > > routing policy. I guess I'm looking for a a simplified routed which > > will handle my static routes and can be turned on with a only an > > xxx_enable in rc.conf and then ba

Re: Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

2017-12-12 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
> On 13.12.2017 03:00, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > >> If I want something more complicated (typically BGP) I'll install > >> quagga. > > > > One of the problems now is that these programs are fighting with > > the kernel over these routes and just fill your logs with lots > > of useless messages

Re: [PATCH] ifaddr leak when modifying a route

2017-12-12 Thread Ryan Stone
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Ryan Stone wrote: > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D13417 I still haven't received any feedback on this review. If nobody raises an objection by Thursday, I will commit it. ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://l

[Bug 221919] ixl: TX queue hang when using TSO and having a high and mixed network load

2017-12-12 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221919 Garrett Wollman changed: What|Removed |Added CC||woll...@freebsd.org --- Comment

[Bug 221919] ixl: TX queue hang when using TSO and having a high and mixed network load

2017-12-12 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221919 --- Comment #7 from Ryan Stone --- Sorry, there was a mistake in the patch. I think that something got lost in translation when I ported it forward. I've regenerated the patch at the same location, or you can replace this line in ixl_pf_m

[Bug 208007] [patch] Int overflow in dhclient(1)

2017-12-12 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208007 --- Comment #1 from Michael McConville --- Hi guys. Just a reminder that hasn't been applied yet. It's a very simple fix. Thanks for your time, Michael -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. __