Messages in this thread |  | | From | (Bob Tracy - TDS) | Subject | Re: 2.1.15 vs. "route" | Date | Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:18:16 -0600 (CST) |
| |
A.N.Kuznetsov wrote: > > Interface routes are added automatically in 2.1.15, > you need not add them manually. > But if you want to override default behaviour, > kernel will require complete route specification: > address, mask, device.
Confirmed. What is the proper mask for a "default" route? My guess is that it is either all 0's or all 1's. In my opinion, a netmask for a default route doesn't make a great deal of sense. Certainly a netmask makes a great deal of sense for a route to a specific network or host, but the idea of a default route is to route that which cannot otherwise be routed. If the default route netmask value doesn't matter, then the kernel shouldn't complain when I fail to specify one :-).
-- Bob Tracy | "The gene pool could use a little chlorine." AFIWC/AFCERT | -- Unknown rct@merkin.csap.af.mil |
|  |