Re: Telnet does not work in 2.0.10
root (root@lunix.org)
Sat, 3 Aug 1996 12:43:39 +0200 (MET DST)
> > I have Caldera setup at home and noticed that the routing table did not
> > have a route for the 127.0.0.0 network. I checked the network setup files
> > and found that when it called the route add command,it was calling it with
> > "route add -net 127.0.0.1", and it should be using "route add -net
> > 127.0.0.0".
> > I also noticed that (since I had upgraded to kerneld and kernel loadable
> > modules, I did not have an alias for the loop-back device to the dummy.o
> > so whenever a call was made to the lo device, it was going to the bit
> > bucket.
> >
> > Check these things -- might be how Caldera and their route binary works.
> >
> > Dan
>
> The below is taken from the Changes file in /usr/src/linux/Documentation:
>
>
> Upgrade notes
> *************
>
> Network errors with recent kernels
> ==================================
>
> Many default network scripts are set up to add a route to the
> localhost at 127.0.0.1 at startup. However, they do this incorrectly.
> To fix the error, which is now spotted by the kernel (causing many
> daemons to quit working), look for a line like `route add -net
> 127.0.0.1' in your network configuration files and change it to `route
> add -net 127.0.0.0'.
>
> This error is present in all Red Hat distributions (and derivative
> distributions like Caldera). If you're running one of these, edit
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-lo, changing the line `route add
> -net $(IPADDR)' to `route add -net 127.0.0.0' and you should be fine.
>
Yes, I noticed it as soon as it changed. I disagree with the decission very
much though. If you add a net it gets the netmask from the kernel and adds the
route. So what's wrong in also allowing you to give a host, and if you also indicated
a net route, adding the net that contains that host ? It does not break the old
behaviour and gives you a quite usefull extra way to do things. after you brought up
the interface for your device you just do something like:
route add -net `hostname`
instead of having to get the netmask from the interface, anding it with your hostname
converted to IP-address and then adding it. That's defenitely a much less clear and
easier to make errors with script to bring up the net.
I definetely prefer the old semantics and see absolutely no reason why it was dropped,
except gratituous compatibility with the behaviour of other unices (and do we care that
they do it wrong ?).
The first time I saw 'route add -net 127.0.0.1' I thought: Wow, neat. These guys have
definetely a more open mindset than other unices', and then they drop it :-(
I want net-routes with host back !!!! Linuuuuuuuuuuuuuussssss !!!!! (Alan ?)
Ton Hospel