On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 1:34 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2020-08-07 18:44, Tom H wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:49 PM Ed Greshko <ed.greshko@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> On 2020-08-05 21:02, Tom H wrote: >>>> Hopefully Todd, the OP, realized that you were implying that he >>>> might not have "systemd-resolved" running... >>> >>> Hopefully.... >>> >>> I may be dense, but it seems to me there is no particular advantage >>> to using resolvectl, or getent over the "ip route" command to learn >>> the IP address of the gateway. For my $ those give too little info >>> to understand how traffic may be routed. And that is what I am >>> normally also wanting to know when looking at a gateway. But that >>> may just be me. >> The complaint was that the iproute tools spit out too much >> information. > > Oh, I thought the complaint was that nmcli, at least the command I > used, gave too much info. Granted, I was giving a command which > returned all the info I though the OP wanted. I remember that someone proposed "ip a" and/or "ip r", but the Todd said it was too verbose; "nmcli" too. > FWIW, I only use nmcli to create, edit, control connections/devices > under the control of NetworkManager. I don't use, and wouldn't use, > nmcli to search/determine how things are configured on a system I'm > not familiar with. If a system's using NM, I definitely use "nmcli" to find out what's going on, whether I've set it up or not. But, unless I'm setting up a bridge or a bond, I write out the config under "/etc/NetworkManager/system-connections". > Each tool has some "drawbacks" unless you are aware of their use > cases or have a clear understanding of what you need/want to know. > For example, > > [egreshko@meimei ~]$ resolvectl query _gateway > _gateway: 192.168.1.1 -- link: enp2s0 > 192.168.2.5 -- link: wlp4s0 > 2001:b030:112f::1 -- link: enp2s0 > > Returns a list of "default gateways". But, it doesn't tell you which > will actually be used. This is abusing "resolvectl"! LOL It's not meant for displaying routing tables. But a bug report with the output above might convince the systemd developers to add "metric" in the case of a gateway, or, simply, in the case of "_gateway". > [egreshko@meimei ~]$ ip -br -4 route show | grep default > default via 192.168.1.1 dev enp2s0 proto static metric 100 > default via 192.168.2.5 dev wlp4s0 proto dhcp metric 600 > > Tells one the same, but does have the metric so you know which route > would be used first. But you can't, at least I've not found a way, to > list both IPv4 and IPv6 routes with the same command. > > And even both of those, as written, don't show Host routes which also > need a "gateway" but not one which is "default" But you're grepping for "default". > netstat -rn is sorta fine for IPv4, but spits out too much for my > taste with IPv6. I don't normally care about scope link info. It > also has a Flag of U which can confuse since some docs say "route is > up" and other documentation say "route is valid". It can lead some to > think that it may mean the physical gateway device is "up" and > working. It also lacks a metric....but I suppose most setups are > rather straight-forward. I've never seen "valid". It's "usable" in BSD-land. But "man route" says that it's "up" in Linux-land. Like "ip r", "route -n"/"netstat -nr" only show one family at a time, "inet" by default. Could it be a Linux limitation, one family at a time?! On OpenBSD, the inet and inet6 families are displayed by default. _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
