Robert Manning wrote:
> Interface configuration utilities (such as ifconfig) which
> implement IP are correct to add an interface route because
> to do anything else is inconsistent with IP's definition of
> a network. Historically, NOT adding the route has only served
> to confuse the operator into believeing that any route he
> would calculate could be stuffed in and work (properly), when
> quite the opposite is true.
This is maybe the most common case, but please understand that some
other case existe. 'routed' is a such case. It add a route to each
interface with no route and broadcast the information. With 2.2 and
later kernel we have to set up an interface, delete the route and
start routed. See this example :
ifconfig eth1 192.168.26.1 netmask 255.2552.255.0 \
broadcast 192.168.26.255
route del -net 192.168.26.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
ifconfig eth2 192.168.27.1 netmask 255.2552.255.0 \
broadcast 192.168.27.255
route del -net 192.168.27.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
echo -n "Starting network routing daemon: routed";
start-stop-daemon --start --quiet --exec /usr/sbin/routed;
echo "."
So after routed is started other machine can see networks
192.168.26.0 and 192.168.27.0. Ok, I can live with this hack. I just try
to show that set up an interface without a route can be useful.
-- Jean-Christian- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 31 2000 - 21:00:22 EST