On Tue, 2005-27-12 at 08:33 -0500, jamal wrote:
> Using explicit priorities is also "broken". Has been since day
> one - Alexey was planning it to fix it "some day". i.e if you
> add a second exact same rule with exactly the same prio, it will
> be lifo added. OTOH, if you dont specify a priority
On Tue, 2005-27-12 at 10:03 +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
> In theory this patch is absolutely correct and we should go
> that way one day. The problem is that iproute sets NLM_F_EXCL
> by default when adding rules so this patch would modify the
> behaviour of all existing "ip rule add" usages.
>
> T
> > I realized that in fib_rules.c the inet_rtm_new_rule()
> > function adds rules without checking if they already
> > exist. This may result in duplicate rules being added.
> > It makes it difficult to remove a rule when it is
> > added multiple times (with the intention that it would
> > be adde
From: "Gabor Fekete" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:18:28 -0800
> I realized that in fib_rules.c the inet_rtm_new_rule()
> function adds rules without checking if they already
> exist. This may result in duplicate rules being added.
> It makes it difficult to remove a rule when it i
