Hey Kenneth, On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 09:07:24PM -0400, Kenneth R Westerback wrote: > > > I am unsure why dhclient touches the v6 routing table. Is this an > > > unwanted side effect when it eventually refreshes the v4 default > > > gateway, e.g. a bug? > It should not be touching the v6 routing table. If it does, then this is > a bug. priv_flush_routes() assumes that specifying mib[3] = AF_INET will > prevent any IPv6 routes from being reported and thus zapped. If this is > not working ...
AFAIK, priv_flush_routes() is only called on cleanup, not when a new lease is to be set, nor as a follow-up to flush_routes(). The latter however is a bit cryptic to me, and I am not sure what it does exactly, but there surely isn't any AF_INET specification. > > Same here. This is odd. Maybe the IPv6 default route gets overwritten at > > the same time as the IPv4 one. > Since add_route() explicitly specifies *.sin_family = AF_INET, the > assumption again is that IPv6 routing table entries should not be > affected. priv_add_route() does, but add_route() doesn't. I'm not familiar with how the imsg are handled, so I might be missing something that would have priv_add_route() be called in response to something add_route() did. (and s/add/flush/g). > > Running dhclient from CURRENT therefore seems to be a good workaround, > > but I doubt the lease management is the cause of the problem. Rather, I > > still suspect that flush_routes() is closer to the culprit. > > I'll file a bug. > Well, if it's working in -current, what's the bug? I think the fact that it works is a side effect of the change of 1.260, rather than the potential bug (as you pointed out earlier) being fixed. -- Olivier Mehani <[email protected]> PGP fingerprint: 4435 CF6A 7C8D DD9B E2DE F5F9 F012 A6E2 98C6 6655 [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
