In kernel routing table vs. /sbin/ip vs. /sbin/route

• Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Serial Driver Name Question (kernels 2.4.x)"
• Previous message: Benjamin LaHaise: "Re: i686 SMP systems with more then 12 GB ram with 2.4.x kernel ?"
• Next in thread: Martin Schewe: "Re: In kernel routing table vs. /sbin/ip vs. /sbin/route"
• Reply: Martin Schewe: "Re: In kernel routing table vs. /sbin/ip vs. /sbin/route"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Using /sbin/route, I can add multiple default routes like so:

/sbin/route add -net default gw 192.168.0.1
/sbin/route add -net default gw 192.168.0.2

But I cannot do the same with /sbin/ip:

/sbin/ip route add default via 192.168.0.1
/sbin/ip route add default via 192.168.0.2
RTNETLINK answers: File exists

Given that /sbin/ip is the more powerful and modern tool, I'm lead to
believe that /sbin/route might be leaving the in kernel routing table in a
weird state.

My two simple questions are as follows:

1) Which tool is more correct?

2) What is the behavior of the kernel when multiple default routes are
defined?

Thanks,

davez

-- 
Dave Zarzycki
http://zarzycki.org/~dave/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Serial Driver Name Question (kernels 2.4.x)"
• Previous message: Benjamin LaHaise: "Re: i686 SMP systems with more then 12 GB ram with 2.4.x kernel ?"
• Next in thread: Martin Schewe: "Re: In kernel routing table vs. /sbin/ip vs. /sbin/route"
• Reply: Martin Schewe: "Re: In kernel routing table vs. /sbin/ip vs. /sbin/route"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:31 EST