[LARTC] Possible kernel bug with routes

[Sven Anders]

First of all: Thanks for the answer!!!!

Ard van Breemen schrieb:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:56:52AM +0200, Sven Anders wrote:
> <snipped a lot>
>>> ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link
>> RTNETLINK answers: File exists
> 
> s/add/append/
> 
>> I thought they are different!?!
>> Is here any difference I did not see?
>> If they are not different, why does the kernel not recognize it
>> (see above) and avoid the duplicate entry?
> 
> add prevents duplicates, append just adds.

Ok, this would prevent the error, but it does not explain the error itself. Did
you tried it yourself? All I want to know is, if I did a mistake. If so, please
explain my error...

>> Another question:
>>
>>  Why can't I set a route on an interface that is down?
> 
> That's by some design. Use patches from linuxvirtualserver.org if
> you want them to exist.

Ok, I will try it... But what's the reason for this design?
I think, this test could be done in user-space and did not have to be in the
kernel.

> 
>> PPS: Why is ANYBODY still ignoring this e-mail for over 3 weeks?????
> 
> People are busy :-)

Ok, I understand this, but for over three weeks with so many people on this
mailing list?? :-)

Regards
 Sven

-- 
 Sven Anders <anders at anduras.de>                 () Ascii Ribbon Campaign
                                                 /\ Support plain text e-mail
 ANDURAS service solutions AG
 Innstra?e 71 - 94036 Passau - Germany
 Web: www.anduras.de - Tel: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-0 - Fax: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-55
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: anders.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 339 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ds9a.nl/pipermail/lartc/attachments/20060409/82f1609f/anders-0001.vcf