Re: 2.1.15 vs. "route"

Bob Tracy - TDS (
Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:18:16 -0600 (CST)

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	|