lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: howto disable auto route setup?
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Sam Mortimer wrote:
>
> i believe you're missing the whole point. Alexey summed it up nicely
> earlier. when you ifconfig an interface the main thing you do is tell
> the kernel which set of ip addresses can be reached directly via that
> interface. ie the route is implicit when you configure the interface.
> if you're wanting something different then you either don't understand
> and/or you're doing something wrong!
>
> i think you're the one who's possibly failing to understand.
>
> to say a route is implicit is definitely not correct! if it was
> then there wouldn't be any need for a route command! How can you
> know from:
>
> ifconfig 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth0 up
>
> what route i want?

erm... clearly all ip nodes addressed from 192.168.0.1 through to
192.168.0.254 are accessible through eth0 (or so you're ifconfig command
infers) - why not save a bit of work and automatically add this to the
routing table?

> maybe i want to add a policy route, and i don't want the
> "implicit" route to be up for even a millisecond. maybe i want a
> different window size, maybe i want to do a whole load of strange
> things, maybe i don't even want to have a route... who's to say
> what i want?

eh? policy route to specify what's reachable through a locally attached
interface? you should be *adding* this stuff later, after the device is
configured but before anything is listening on this interface. why would
you ever want to replace one of these "implicit" (as you call them, i call
them "you messed up you're config if you want to change them" routes ;-)?

`maybe i don't even want to have a route?' you say. ok. why not just
simply remove the nic?

> having to delete/modify routes that you didn't ever setup is
> silly.

but you *did* set them up when you ran the ifconfig command... it was
extra work having to run the `route' command for directly attached
interfaces before...

> this feature doesn't appear to solve any problems (if it does i'd
> be glad to know), just creates some for me, and a lot of others.

partial agreement. theoretically, solves nothing. *practically*, makes
configuring networking under linux far easier.

> diald needs to be fixed for one. I'll have a look at it, but i'm
> not much of a coder, and it'll take me month(s) to figure it out.

how's it broken then?

> if it ain't broke don't fix it...

"it's" not broken. you're network design may be.

-Sam.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.102 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site