On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:56:52AM +0200, Sven Anders wrote: <snipped a lot> > > ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link > RTNETLINK answers: File exists s/add/append/ > I thought they are different!?! > Is here any difference I did not see? > If they are not different, why does the kernel not recognize it > (see above) and avoid the duplicate entry? add prevents duplicates, append just adds. > Another question: > > Why can't I set a route on an interface that is down? That's by some design. Use patches from linuxvirtualserver.org if you want them to exist. > I can set an address, so why not a route? You don't set an address... The address exists only at the moment the interface comes up. Before that you don't have the address (active in your ip stack) > I there a reason for that? > As far as I understand routing should be handled independed from > the addresses... Jups > Example: > > ip link set down dev eth0 > > ip addr add 10.100.0.1/24 dev eth0 > > ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link > RTNETLINK answers: Network is down The ip is not there yet. ip link set up dev eth0 # Activate interfaces ip a add 127.0.0.1/32 dev eth0 # Bind interface to ipv4 stack ip a add 10.100.0.1/32 dev lo # We need a public ip on our ip stack # Add the route to the interface with sane src ip. ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 src 10.100.0.1 > PPS: Why is ANYBODY still ignoring this e-mail for over 3 weeks????? People are busy :-) _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
