On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 04:24:33PM -0400, Jack Carroll wrote: > I found a few hours this morning for a long test session. I wasn't > able to re-create the exact conditions where I ran into trouble before; not > enough note-taking last time, for one thing.
The network route behavior while bringing an interface up with ifconfig changed in the kernels (a few times). You get an error message for example if you try to use a gateway where no direct route is present. So a script will work with one kernel and not with the other. I dont consider this a net-tools bug, since net tools is a low level tool. If you use ifup for example, it will automatially check if the interface routes exist or not. > I got the error message if I issued a command like: > > route add -net 192.168.67.0 eth1 I havent seen the errors when setting up network routes. However you should specify always an explicite netmask anyway. CIDR is quite a few years old. > I suspect what's happening is that older versions of the route > command used to guess the netmask according to the IP address class, and > newer versions don't do it because of CIDR. That's a reasonable design > decision. No, the route tools has not changed. It passes the arguments you give to it 1:1 and does never guess anything. The kernel used to do some guessing and is most often wrong with it. > "-net" the "target" is a network. NOTE: the netmask option is > required, > unless the "target" is "default". Well, the problem is, it depends on the kernel. But I can add a wanring describing this to the manage. Greetings Bernd -- (OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ( .. ) [EMAIL PROTECTED],linux.de,debian.org} http://www.eckes.org/ o--o 1024D/E383CD7E [EMAIL PROTECTED] v:+497211603874 f:+49721151516129 (O____O) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
