Hiroki,
Throughout your post you are *theorizing* about what you *think* will
happen. You obviously missed the parts of my post(s) where I said I
actually tested it.
BEFORE you make any changes to the existing code you need to do some
actual testing, publish your methods and results, make a persu
Doug Barton wrote
in <4bcb6a14.5040...@freebsd.org>:
do> > # ifconfig gif0 create
do> > # ifconfig gif0 up
do>
do> Your statement is literally true, in this case the network.subr stuff
do> "has no control" because it isn't run. That was the same for the old
do> code as it is for the new code.
Now we're getting somewhere. :)
On 04/18/10 12:04, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote
> in <4bca2b55.9000...@freebsd.org>:
>
> do> > I strongly disagree with this because some IPv6
> do> > applications depend on link-local address automatically added on
> do> > cloned interfaces
> do>
>
Doug Barton wrote
in <4bca2b55.9000...@freebsd.org>:
do> > I strongly disagree with this because some IPv6
do> > applications depend on link-local address automatically added on
do> > cloned interfaces
do>
do> Can you please give a configuration example that would create the
do> scenario you
To add a little history to the discussion:
In June of last year you posted a patch to the -rc list to update our
treatment of IPv6 configuration in rc.d and bring it on par with how we
configure IPv4. At the time I did not give your patch adequate review,
and subsequent to it being committed a
