> Hello,
>
> > also, what happens if add an interface, but want to have a really
> > unusual route to it - and the default route that the kernel adds
> > is one i *really* don't want - even for the small amount of time
> > between executing ifconfig and route. (i'm thinking of unusual
> > firewall, tunnels, dial on demand type setups).
>
> If you don't want the route, why do you set a non-trivial
> netmask for the interface?
why do i have piss about with hacky network setup scripts, when
before i could "ifconfig" "route" and have things the way i want
them?
anyway, this feature is inconvenient in some situations, eg:
* unusual setups,
* network software and scripts that havn't been updated yet.
The old way, is never inconvenient!
ergo: the old way of ifconfig+route is better!
-- Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie PGP5 key: http://www.clubi.ie/publickey.txt -------------------------------------------Arithmetic is being able to count up to twenty without taking off your shoes. -- Mickey Mouse
- 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/