In article <000901c2aabb$eb2d0e40$210d640a@unfix.org> you wrote: >> no they didnt, I must know I am the net tools maintainer. The >> default target is supported in route 1.57. > > Hmmm you probably know this better but as (cut from route.c) > 8<--------- > * (derived from FvK's 'route.c 1.70 01/04/94') > ---------->8 > I think one can say that it supported it all along :) > 1994 is almost 10 years ago again, and the patch went in before > that apparently... the CVS versions of the source files are not related to the net-tools release version. 1.57 was released in May 2000. <http://www.tazenda.demon.co.uk/phil/net-tools/> >> it is not a hack it was there for a good reason, to avoid >> link and site local routes. > > No the 2000::/3 is a hack because one couldn't specify a default > route using the <2.4.20 kernels. the reason why the default route for gateways(!!) was not possible is not a bug or missing feature, but by intention, to avoid a route on a exterior gateway which would also route site and link local addresses. > It has, as far as I know and realize, always been like this on Linux: yes because site and link local routes are not matched by 2000/3 2000/3=0010xxxx... fe80 =11111110.... > As you see I still have a 2000::/3 because a default can't be added > because of the <2.4.20 kernel and the fact that this box has forwarding > turned on. yes, but if you add 2000::/3 you do not have a default route which routes site and link local addresses, which is the idea behind using that prefix. So it is not a good idea to actually use "default" aka 0::/0. (unless 2.4.20 is not routing those prefixes, which I have to check in the code -or- you manually make sure you habe site/link local point to somewhere else). > Anyone know the real reason ? trust me :) Greetings Bernd -- eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/ Project Freefire - http://www.freefire.org/ - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
