On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Zdenek Radouch wrote: > > 1) looks like what I need may be possible, at least as far as > some kernels are concerned. It's not clear that 2.4.25 will work. It is clear it will. > 2) I only have to perform close to magic in locating the "right" > tools that happen to work on a "right" kernel release. Not really. Recent (as in, in past 3 years) tools and recent (as in, in past 3 years) kernel. > > 3) Clearly the route processing is in flux, at least within the > releases I am dealing with, so I need to be careful interpreting > what I see, and I should avoid making any inferences. No, not really. > > There is no doubt that the 127.x net is treated in a special way. If I > have to believe what I just learned, then the 127 routes are in a > "local" table, a table on which the "route" utility by definition does > not operate! On the 2.4.25 machine I cannot get any of the "ip" > commands to execute without an error: 'Route' utility is by definition deprecated. > $ ip route del 127.0.0.1 dev lo table local > ip: either "to" is duplicate, or "table" is a garbage. [root@bawx2 ~]# ip route del 127.0.0.1 dev lo table local [root@bawx2 ~]# And don't forget to delete the /8 route as well. > Since there was no "to" on the command line I suspect the busybox crap > to be doing something very bad. I'll look at that. Don't try to use broken tools (busyboxed iproute2). Test with known-good iproute2. > To summarize, it appears that I can subnet the 127 net by appropriately > manipulating one or two kernel routing tables, if I can find the right > tools to do that. If the tools don't work, then getting the tools to > work would be the necessary modifications I would have to make on my > machines to get the job done. -alex - : 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
