![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 07:51, Pekka Savola wrote: > Well, the system may make some sense, but IMHO, there is still zero sense > in policing this thing when you add a route. That's just plain bogus. > This is a bug which must be fixed ASAP. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think in this case the interface had forwarding enabled and the sanity check in fact prevented a default route pointing to the node itself from being configured. Otherwise I fully agree. The subnet router anycast address doesn't warrant any special handling. MikaL - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||