Maksim Yevmenkin <e...@freebsd.org> wrote in <201207191536.q6jfabor094...@svn.freebsd.org>:
em> Author: emax em> Date: Thu Jul 19 15:36:36 2012 em> New Revision: 238622 em> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/238622 em> em> Log: em> Allow to specify no source-address-selection policy em> em> MFC after: 1 week em> em> Modified: em> head/etc/rc.d/ip6addrctl em> em> Modified: head/etc/rc.d/ip6addrctl em> ============================================================================== em> --- head/etc/rc.d/ip6addrctl Thu Jul 19 14:43:46 2012 (r238621) em> +++ head/etc/rc.d/ip6addrctl Thu Jul 19 15:36:36 2012 (r238622) em> @@ -83,6 +83,9 @@ ip6addrctl_start() em> # Backward compatibility when ipv6_prefer=NO em> ip6addrctl_prefer_ipv4 em> ;; em> + [Nn][Oo][Nn][Ee]) em> + ip6addrctl flush >/dev/null 2>&1 em> + ;; em> *) em> warn "\$ip6addrctl_policy is invalid: ${ip6addrctl_policy}. " \ em> " \"ipv4_prefer\" is used instead." Just curious, why ip6addrctl_enable=NO is not enough here? I would like to eliminate yes/no/none keywords in $ip6addrctl_policy because such keywords are vague. If we need the empty rule for some reason, "empty" would be a better name for the policy, I think. -- Hiroki
pgpmQpd3tmfUw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
