On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:27:42PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote: > So, have you read the commit message that added that code? If you're > not sure what version that code appeared in, use "cvs annotate > whatever.c" to see when those lines were committed. Then compare that > version to the previous version with "cvs diff -r1.N-1 -r1.N > whatever.c" to confirm that rev 1.N actually added those lines (and it > wasn't just a reformatting or similar). If not, repeat with "cvs > annotate -r1.N-1 whatever.c" until you find when the code was added. > Then use "cvs log -N -r1.N whatever.c" to see the commit message. > Hopefully (tm), the commit message will be clear, or at least point > you in the right direction for understanding why it was added. >
Hi, again thanks for your help, I didn't think of that, well that almost did the trick, here is claudio's message: -revision 1.9 -date: 2007/04/27 09:20:32; author: claudio; state: Exp; -lines: +21 -3 -Ripd needs a valid route for 224.0.0.9 to work. Instead of forcing -users to set multicast_router=YES we inject a 224.0.0.9/32 route into -the kernel and remove the route on exit if the insert was -successful. With this ripd works out of the box. OK michele@ norby@ Ok so that save us from "manually" adding the route, and by the message it looks like it *needs* it, but I still don't understand why it is necessary, if that's not a special case, then any software who want' to multicast will at least need to add a route, which would require root privilege (ok privilege separation helps). Don't wanna be pedantic but if someone could clarify the requirements I'd be glad. Thanks. -- Christiano Farina HAESBAERT Do NOT send me html mail.
