> >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?
>
> i believe you're missing the whole point. Alexey summed it up nicely
> earlier. when you ifconfig an interface the main thing you do is tell
> the kernel which set of ip addresses can be reached directly via that
> interface. ie the route is implicit when you configure the interface.
> if you're wanting something different then you either don't understand
> and/or you're doing something wrong!
I am sorely tempted to say "bollocks" to that. It may be true in
many cases but I doubt it is provably true in all cases and thus
is the Wrong Thing to impose.
Consider an ippp link being managed by diald (which, not entirely
coincidentally, I have quite a few around...). The ippp interface
must be configured and up in order for it to accept incoming calls.
But the _routes_ must point through diald's proxy. When diald
decides the link needs to be up it initiates the call and points
the routes through the real interface. The proxy stays up.
It isn't impossible to make diald work in an environment where
routes magically appear whenever an interface changes in some way.
However that isn't _always_ the right thing to do and it isn't
necessary to do it in kernel space when everyone is already
familiar with the need to set routes from user space after changing
an interface.
Mike
--
A train stops at a train station, a bus stops at a bus station.
On my desk I have a work station...
.----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Mike Jagdis | Internet: mailto:mike@roan.co.uk |
| Roan Technology Ltd. | |
| 54A Peach Street, Wokingham | Telephone: +44 118 989 0403 |
| RG40 1XG, ENGLAND | Fax: +44 118 989 1195 |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------'
-
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/