Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:42:58 +1200 | From | Chris Wedgwood <> | Subject | Re: 2.1 can't delete routes? |
| |
On Mon, Jul 13, 1998 at 12:22:04AM +0200, Thomas Quinot wrote:
> Why should it not? The kernel does (when you ifconfig up an interface, > the netmask defaults this way for the automatically-created > interface route).
Good point.
Here, I would argue that ifconfig should fail if no netmask is specified, because the interface/connect route will then be incorrect.
I think almost all common distributions init the network along the lines of:
ifconfig eth3 ${IPADDR} netmask ${NETMASK} broadcast ${BROADCAST} route add -net ${NETWORK} dev eth3 [ "${GATEWAY}" ] && route add default gw ${GATEWAY} metric 1
So having a more rigid ifconfig and route will only break scripts people have hacked themselves and are therefor presumably cluefull enough to fix them.
> OBTW: is there a means of disabling the automatic creation > of an interface route?
I don't think so. I'm not prevent this is a good idea.
I used to dislike the automatic generation of the route, but after some though think it is the right thing to do.
Something else quite nice, ifconfig eth0 <same-ip> netmask <different-mask> also correctly updates the route.
-Chris
- 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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |