Re: [LARTC] RTNETLINK answers: File exists

[Whit Blauvelt <whit@transpect.com>]

Thanks Julian,

Does anyone know why the heck "ip route" has been programmed so that it
allows something to be deleted that by the same syntax can't be added? This
seems to me to be very, very wrong. Anything that "ip route" shows should be
valid syntax, both for deletion and adding. If the utility is more fussy
about what can be added than what can be deleted, this is very bad
programming. Why has such bad programming been allowed in code that
interacts with the Linux kernel?

Thanks,
Whit

On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 08:50:33PM +0200, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> 
> 	Hello,
> 
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
> 
> > default via 66.95.83.209 dev eth1
> >
> > # ip route add default via 65.84.205.97 dev eth2
> > RTNETLINK answers: File exists
> 
> 	It seems you are trying to use alternative routes. Use
> "ip route append" instead. You can also look at the following
> URL where the alt routes are extended:
> 
> http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/~julian/
> look for "Static, Alternative Routes, Dead Gateway Detection, NAT"
> 
> and also in dgd-usage.txt
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Whit
> 
> Regards
> 
> --
> Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/