Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Oct 1998 19:54:21 +0300 (EEST) | From | Serguei Koubouchine <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.1.125 & gated - boked |
| |
On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Jordan Mendelson wrote:
May by it's kinda miracle, but I do succesfully run gated-3.5.10 with ospf here ...
Kernel is 2.1.125-ac2 with patched eepro100-1.0.3. Those complains are rather normal, you can safely ignore them. gateds 3.5.[89] did also produce a lot of similar crap with 2.1.1xx but did work. The same for 3.5.10.
> Looks like Gated is hosed under 2.1.125. It works just fine under 2.1.118.. > same binary... I've recompiled and gotten a bit farther than I did before.. > anyway, here's the output: > > Oct 14 03:31:27 krt_rtread: Initial routes read from kernel (via > /proc/net/route > ): > Oct 14 03:31:27 rt_add: host bits not zero 208.0.84.154/0.0.0.0 gw > 208.0.84.142 > Kernel > KRT READ REMNANT 208.0.84.154 mask 0.0.0.0 router 208.0.84.142 > fla > gs <>0: queueing delete for rt_add() failure > Oct 14 03:31:27 rt_add: host bits not zero 208.0.84.187/0.0.0.0 gw > 208.0.84.142 > Kernel > KRT READ REMNANT 208.0.84.187 mask 0.0.0.0 router 208.0.84.142 > fla > gs <>0: queueing delete for rt_add() failure > Oct 14 03:31:27 rt_add: host bits not zero 208.0.84.200/0.0.0.0 gw > 208.0.84.142 > Kernel > ... [more lines like this] > KRT SEND DELETE 208.0.84.180 mask 0.0.0.0 router 208.0.84.142 > flag > s <GW>2: Invalid argument > KRT SEND DELETE 208.0.84.215 mask 0.0.0.0 router 208.0.84.142 > flag > s <GW>2: Invalid argument > KRT SEND DELETE 206.105.188 mask 0.0.0.0 router 206.105.188.4 > flag > s <GW>2: Invalid argument > KRT SEND DELETE 206.105.188 mask 0.0.0.0 router 206.105.188.4 > flag > s <GW>2: Invalid argument > > What's odd is it's refering to the gateway address as the virtual interface, > and the mask is completely off. What changed? I checked /proc/net/route... > and the sscanf function shouldn't have any problems. Another odd thing is, I > appear to have two routing entries which are exactly the same in > /proc/net/route: > > eth0 00BC69CE 00000000 0001 0 0 0 > 00FFFFFF > 0 0 0 > eth0 00BC69CE 00000000 0001 0 0 0 > 00FFFFFF > 0 0 0 > > I'm pretty sure this sort of behavior shouldn't be allowed :) > > Anyway, it's sort of important than I get OSPF up and running again, so I'd > appreciate it if someone could tell me what possibly could have changed to > affected gated this badly. If someone has a patch to make my life easier, > I'd appreciate it. > > > > Jordan > > -- > Jordan Mendelson : http://jordy.wserv.com > Web Services, Inc. : http://www.wserv.com > > > > - > 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/ >
======================================================================= Serguei Koubouchine aka the Tamer < > The impossible we do immediately. e-mail: ksi@gu.net SK320-RIPE < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. =======================================================================
- 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/
| |