> Here, I would argue that ifconfig should fail if no netmask is specified,
> because the interface/connect route will then be incorrect.
This is also an acceptable solution.
> I used to dislike the automatic generation of the route, but after some
> though think it is the right thing to do.
This is not always appropriate. Imagine the following installation:
Machine A Machine B
eth0 eth1 eth0
! ! !
-+-----ether0-----+- -+-----ether1-to other hosts & the Internet
ether1 supports routed class C C.C.C.0.
ether0 supports non-routed class A 10.0.0.0.
Now suppose that I want to make A rechable for the outside world
and to other hosts on C.C.C.0. Then I assign A one address in C.C.C.0
(either for eth0 or eth0:0) and I have B do proxy ARP for A on ether1.
If the kernel creates an interface route on A, I have either
to delete it explicitly or to have B do proxy ARP for all ether1
hosts on ther0, which is impractical.
--
Thomas.Quinot@Cuivre.FR.EU.ORG <URL:http://www.mygale.org/~tquinot/>
-
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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html