erm... clearly all ip nodes addressed from 192.168.0.1 through to
192.168.0.254 are accessible through eth0 (or so you're ifconfig command
infers) - why not save a bit of work and automatically add this to the
routing table?
> maybe i want to add a policy route, and i don't want the
> "implicit" route to be up for even a millisecond. maybe i want a
> different window size, maybe i want to do a whole load of strange
> things, maybe i don't even want to have a route... who's to say
> what i want?
eh? policy route to specify what's reachable through a locally attached
interface? you should be *adding* this stuff later, after the device is
configured but before anything is listening on this interface. why would
you ever want to replace one of these "implicit" (as you call them, i call
them "you messed up you're config if you want to change them" routes ;-)?
`maybe i don't even want to have a route?' you say. ok. why not just
simply remove the nic?
> having to delete/modify routes that you didn't ever setup is
> silly.
but you *did* set them up when you ran the ifconfig command... it was
extra work having to run the `route' command for directly attached
interfaces before...
> this feature doesn't appear to solve any problems (if it does i'd
> be glad to know), just creates some for me, and a lot of others.
partial agreement. theoretically, solves nothing. *practically*, makes
configuring networking under linux far easier.
> diald needs to be fixed for one. I'll have a look at it, but i'm
> not much of a coder, and it'll take me month(s) to figure it out.
how's it broken then?
> if it ain't broke don't fix it...
"it's" not broken. you're network design may be.
-Sam.
-
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/