On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Hiroki Sato <h...@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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.
i just wanted to make sure that there is a way to absolutely make sure that there is no default address selection policy installed. the wide know rule 9 of rfc 3484 is really messing things up for dns-style load balancing. even when ipv6 is not used. personally, i don't think that "none" is unreasonable word for "ip6addrctl_policy", but i don't feel particularly strongly about it. any name will do as long as original functionality is preserved. thanks, max _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
