[lkml]   [1996]   [Dec]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.1.15 vs. "route"

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 |

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.042 / U:4.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site