> In article <792g5k$g09$1@gate.mps.co.uk>, Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie> wrote:
> >On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Martin Mares wrote:
> >
> >> If you don't want the route, why do you set a non-trivial
> >> netmask for the interface?
> >
> >why do i have piss about with hacky network setup scripts, when
> >before i could "ifconfig" "route" and have things the way i want
> >them?
>
> i believe you're missing the whole point. Alexey summed it up nicely
> earlier. when you ifconfig an interface the main thing you do is tell
> the kernel which set of ip addresses can be reached directly via that
> interface. ie the route is implicit when you configure the interface.
> if you're wanting something different then you either don't understand
> and/or you're doing something wrong!
>
I am using version 2.2.1 I don't get errors on startup even though
I 'ifconfig' and 'route' as usual.
OLD_PATH=${PATH}
PATH=/sbin:/usr/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin
hostname chaos
domainname analogic.com
ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.0.0.0 broadcast 127.255.255.255
route add -net 127.0.0.0 dev lo metric 0 netmask 255.0.0.0
ifconfig eth0 204.178.40.224 netmask 255.255.248.0 broadcast 204.178.47.255
route add -net 204.178.40.0 dev eth0 metric 0 netmask 255.255.248.0
route add default gw 204.178.40.1 metric 1 dev eth0 netmask 0.0.0.0
PATH=${OLD_PATH}
Newer versions of the kernel need the complete structure filled in.
There are no defaults. Therefore you have to tell ifconfig and route
about everything. Anyway, if you put the right stuff in there, the
kernel does not complain.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
Penguin : Linux version 2.2.1 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips).
Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
Wisdom : It's not a Y2K problem. It's a Y2Day problem.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/