lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Routing Table (Feature)
    On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:

    > Hello!
    >
    > > The user code doesn't care how a connection is established, nor
    > > how a datagram gets to a destination. Machine-specific raw sockets
    > > don't even care.
    >
    > Sure? Then try to start gated in your configration and
    > look what will occur.

    Well gated is one of the things that should have been fixed a long time
    ago. Advertising that it has a route on the same physical interface
    is broken. This makes cooperating machines send packets to a machine
    advertising such a route, only to have that machine send these packets
    out the same physical link, duplicating traffic.

    >
    > > on the physical network, by manipulating routing netmasks.
    > ....
    > [etc. explanation, when it can be useful skipped]
    >
    > I ABSOLUTELY agree. Then let's teach gated etc. not to rely
    > on interface addresses for beginning. Then we can return
    > to this question and delete from kernel useless SIOC[GS]IFNETMASK.
    >
    Correct on gated, we'll have to "agree to disagree" about the
    mask.

    > It is not joke. You may scan ftp://ftp.inr.ac.ru/ip-routing/
    > to look at apps, which DO use routing tables directly not relying
    > on address information (pimd, rsvpd etc). If the program of sanitization
    > of bsd heritage appeared realistic, I would sign under each your word.
    >

    Yes, BSD networking has a lot of baggage, but it became the de-facto
    standard.

    > For now, keep netmasks and routes in sync, please.

    I can do that, but I have write code to reconfigure interfaces
    during network routing changes (which I have done). Most would
    like to rely on the de-facto standard tools of ifconfig and route.

    ---and I think you could help by deleting all instances of a route
    when 'asked' by route.

    > And if it is impossible, then try not to delete routes installed
    > by kernel at least. (BTW you may just OVERRIDE interface routes
    > without deleting route to wider network installed by kernel)

    Yes, and presently, I can add a specific 'network' route to the device
    itself.. without regard to its address. Nice, but most don't know
    these tricks.

    > Alexey
    >

    Well thanks, again. Please give my suggestion a good look.

    Cheers,
    Dick Johnson
    ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
    Penguin : Linux version 2.2.1 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips).
    Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
    Wisdom : It's not a Y2K problem. It's a Y2Day problem.



    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.029 / U:30.732 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site