Re: Confusing IPv6 route(8) results

2018-05-24 Thread Sebastian Benoit
Denis Fondras(de...@openbsd.org) on 2018.05.24 22:09:30 +0200: > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:43:30PM +0200, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > > Denis Fondras(de...@openbsd.org) 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

Re: Confusing IPv6 route(8) results

2018-05-24 Thread Denis Fondras
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 08:43:30PM +0200, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > Denis Fondras(de...@openbsd.org) 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? > > > > > >

Re: Confusing IPv6 route(8) results

2018-05-24 Thread Sebastian Benoit
Denis Fondras(de...@openbsd.org) 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,

Re: Confusing IPv6 route(8) results

2018-05-24 Thread Denis Fondras
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

Re: Confusing IPv6 route(8) results

2018-05-24 Thread David Higgs
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 5:35 AM Denis Fondras wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:34:19PM -0400, David Higgs wrote: > > I am using route(8) in a script but found some odd behavior when > > querying routes for some IPv6 addresses - lookups seem to fail if the > >

Re: Confusing IPv6 route(8) results

2018-05-24 Thread Denis Fondras
Hi, On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:34:19PM -0400, David Higgs wrote: > I am using route(8) in a script but found some odd behavior when > querying routes for some IPv6 addresses - lookups seem to fail if the > trailing address bytes are zero (implicit or explicitly) as shown > below. However, the

Confusing IPv6 route(8) results

2018-05-23 Thread David Higgs
I am using route(8) in a script but found some odd behavior when querying routes for some IPv6 addresses - lookups seem to fail if the trailing address bytes are zero (implicit or explicitly) as shown below. However, the routing table still seems to be forwarding traffic correctly, as shown in my