Claudio Jeker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 07:37:50AM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > Seems some hosting providers have annoying "out of prefix" > > default gateways whuch are painful to configure > > (https://marc.info/?t=166782242200005&r=1&w=2), should > > we give a pointer in route(8)? > > > > Index: route.8 > > =================================================================== > > RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/route/route.8,v > > retrieving revision 1.104 > > diff -u -p -r1.104 route.8 > > --- route.8 29 Jul 2022 18:28:32 -0000 1.104 > > +++ route.8 9 Nov 2022 07:29:59 -0000 > > @@ -596,6 +596,14 @@ Delete the > > route to the 192.168.5.0/24 network: > > .Pp > > .Dl # route delete -inet 192.168.5.0/24 > > +.Pp > > +Add a static > > +.Xr inet6 4 > > +route to a host which is on the vio0 interface that is outside the prefix > > +configured on the interface, and use that host as a default gateway: > > +.Pp > > +.Dl # route add -inet6 2001:db8:efef::1 -cloning -link -iface vio0 > > +.Dl # route add -inet6 default 2001:db8:efef::1 > > .Sh DIAGNOSTICS > > .Bl -diag > > .It "%s: gateway %s flags %x" > > > > I'm fine with this for now. It would be great if we could make ifconfig do > the right thing but that is more complex. Setting a destination (like on > point-to-point interfaces) is shared with the broadcast address so > IFF_BROADCAST handling needs to be adjusted.
Actually I prefer the route way, because it requires people to be explicit in these circumstances. If it is automatic, there is more chance of creating non-working configurations no?
