Hello, On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Whit Blauvelt wrote: > > # ip route add default via 65.84.205.97 dev eth2 > > RTNETLINK answers: File exists > > Let me be clear about this: anything that can be deleted, should be able to > be added. The "File exists" message is quite wrong, since no file creation > has been requested - this is about a route. The error message is worthless, > stupid, and just plain wrong. > > Has Linus really allowed such nonsense to be integrated with the kernel? > It's a totally cool idea, being able to do Cisco-type stuff with Linux. But > if the implementation is this lame, it shouldn't have been integrated at > all. It seems there are not so much people that use the alternative routes. You try to use them without understanding them. > Sorry for being pissed off, but please don't contribute anything to Linux > that isn't done consistently and right! Use the time you spend to write emails to read some docs. You can read the ip-cref, you can also read my docs. There are many commands: prepend, append, add. Check where is the difference. "File Exist" is a result of matching some set of keys. append and add have different set of keys that are matched. I agree that add and append are similar but once you understand where is the difference I expect from you to propose another name for these commands. They work for different routes. See in my docs what means "alternative routes", how are they grouped. In short, the alternative routes have equal values for the keys but differ in other values which are not part from the matching set and are something as result values, for example, output device, gateway, etc. As result, the lookup for route is happy when selecting any of the alternative routes in one group but you agree they should be different somehow. These additional values don't lead to File Exist for append and alternative routes because there must be a reason they to exist at all. > Whit Regards -- Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
