On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Zdenek Radouch wrote: > seems to be hidden, i.e., it actually is treated in a special way > by one of the entities I am perusing. > Let's see if I can delete the route anyway. > > svfx:~# route del -net 127.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 dev lo > SIOCDELRT: No such process > svfx:~# > > That actually looks like some compatibility issue if I had to guess. > I never used the iproute tools, so I'll ignore that for now. > [Anyone knows what this means?] > and/or the netstat/route/iproute tools are in flux, i.e., being changed > in a major way to the point that I really need to pay attention to what > kernel I am running. I have done the above tests on my "stable" > machine, which runs 2.2.20 (common Debian stable release). I'll go and > retest everything on my embedded target which is running the 2.4.25 > kernel. That's like testing on a yugo. Make sure after upgrading to 2.4, you also get iproute2 toolchain. > Can someone comment on the stability of the tools in question > or any implementation changes in this area that would explain > the above behavior? On 2.4.27, once you delete 127.x address from the interface, traffic will go as expected to another route... - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
