On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:43:30PM +0200, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > Denis Fondras([email protected]) 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 By what rule should it stick to /64 ? Though I agree we should always specify the mask length.
