Changes to route(8) or routing between r325235 and r326782?

[Eugene Grosbein]

On 13.12.2017 01:02, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:

>>> The whole maintain_loopback_route should be KILLED from the kernel,
>>> it is simply the wrong thing to be doing.
>>
>> Only if you can supply alternative way to assign highest priority
>> (administrative distance = 0) for "directly connected" routes.
>> And ability to override dynamically received prefixes with direct
>> interface address assignment.
> 
> This is all done by correctly configured routing daemon
> running in userland over the route socket.

Do we have such daemon maintaining directly connected routed in the base system?

> Only being doing that for 25+ years that way, why suddenly does the
> kernel need to over ride what has already been done and working?

I cannot speak for 25+ years but I can for 17+ while there was NO way
in FreeBSD to assign an address like 192.168.0.1/24 to an interface
when such prefix already was installed to the kernel by routing daemon.
Pinning loopback prefixes solved this problem at last.