Bug 16941
| Summary: | routed: possible netmask problem between fxp0:192.168.1.4/32 and fxp0:192.168.1.0/24 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Base System | Reporter: | Andre Albsmeier <Andre.Albsmeier> |
| Component: | bin | Assignee: | Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh> |
| Status: | Closed FIXED | ||
| Severity: | Affects Only Me | ||
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | 3.4-STABLE | ||
| Hardware: | Any | ||
| OS: | Any | ||
Today I compiled an older routed without the changes of Feb 17th and the problem persists. I assume that something somwhere else has changed and makes routed emit the error message. State Changed From-To: open->feedback Andre, if you have access to a -CURRENT box, could you try this with the new routed-2.21 which I just committed? On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:15:34 +0200, Andre Albsmeier wrote:
> I am just setting up a 4.1-STABLE machine. I have got the
> -current routed sources as well. Should it be possible to
> run your -current routed under 4.1-STABLE ?
Yes. The necessary newcomers RTM_NEWMADDR and RTM_DELMADDR exist in
RELENG_4, so you should have no problems.
Ciao,
Sheldon.
On Wed, 02-Aug-2000 at 15:18:34 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:15:34 +0200, Andre Albsmeier wrote:
>
> > I am just setting up a 4.1-STABLE machine. I have got the
> > -current routed sources as well. Should it be possible to
> > run your -current routed under 4.1-STABLE ?
>
> Yes. The necessary newcomers RTM_NEWMADDR and RTM_DELMADDR exist in
> RELENG_4, so you should have no problems.
Great. I will try as soon I have the machine ready and
time permits (I am a bit overloaded at the moment :-)).
Thanks,
-Andre
On Wed, 02-Aug-2000 at 06:11:25 -0700, sheldonh@FreeBSD.org wrote: > Synopsis: routed: possible netmask problem between fxp0:192.168.1.4/32 and fxp0:192.168.1.0/24 > > State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback > State-Changed-By: sheldonh > State-Changed-When: Wed Aug 2 06:10:24 PDT 2000 > State-Changed-Why: > Andre, if you have access to a -CURRENT box, could you try > this with the new routed-2.21 which I just committed? > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=16941 I tried the -current routed on 4.1-STABLE, it compiled cleanly. Unfortunately, the error message is still there. I am sure the ip alias is set up properly. The message started to appear when peter made his commit to routed in february, e.g.: ---------------- snip ---------------------- Thu Feb 17 05:26:36 2000 CET (5 months, 2 weeks ago) by peter MFC: all fixes and cleanups - this is the last straw, it has broken one time too many. The 3.4 version has been doing bizzare things while the 4.0 version compiled on 3.4 has worked fine. ---------------- snap ---------------------- Before these commits, routed never complained about the ip alias. State Changed From-To: feedback->analyzed Andre believes that Vernon's routed-2.22 addresses his problem. I've merged this distribution into HEAD on FreeBSD. We'll wait a while before merging it onto RELENG_4. Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-bugs->sheldonh My reminder. State Changed From-To: analyzed->closed Turns out we didn't wait as long as anticipated. Acting on feedback from Andre, I merged this onto RELENG_4 today. |
There have been various changes to routed on Feb 17. I am now experiencing a strange message when routed is started: routed: possible netmask problem between fxp0:192.168.1.4/32 and fxp0:192.168.1.0/24 routed: Send mcast sendto(fxp0, 224.0.0.9.520): No route to host If have the following ifconfig lines on the machine in question: ifconfig_fxp0="inet 192.168.1.3 media 100BaseTX mediaopt full-duplex" ifconfig_fxp0_alias0="inet 192.168.1.4 netmask 0xFFFFFFFF" As we can see, 192.168.1.4 is an alias for the machine. ifconfig -a tells me: fxp0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 192.168.1.3 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 inet 192.168.1.4 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 192.168.1.4 ether 00:a0:c9:ca:18:64 media: 100baseTX <full-duplex> status: active supported media: autoselect 100baseTX <full-duplex> 100baseTX 10baseT/UTP <full-duplex> 10baseT/UTP I have never had problems with this setup. OK, I still don't have problems (everything is working) but the message is confusing. I assume it would go away with a different netmask for the alias but this would be wrong, I think. Fix: unknown How-To-Repeat: Configure a machine similar as above. Start routed.