From: Mike Fedyk mfedyk@matchmail.com
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [LARTC] A complicated routing scenario (for me at least)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:24:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-lartc-98373938216944@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-lartc-98373938216914@msgid-missing>
<PRE>Andrew wrote:
><i>
</I>><i> Hey, I'm working on the rules and routes to implement what I've been talking
</I>><i> about, and I've got a small question about the ip rule add.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> I'm trying to add a blackhole route, and ip rule add seems to insist that I
</I>><i> provide a lookup table with the route.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> For instance If I execute the command:
</I>><i>
</I>><i> "ip rule add from 0.0.0.0/0 type blackhole."
</I>><i>
</I>><i> when I look at what it did with "ip rule ls" I see
</I>><i>
</I>><i> "from all lookup main blackhole"
</I>><i>
</I>><i> The only way it seems to get rid of main in the example above is
</I>><i> to define a dummy table and re-add the route like so:
</I>><i>
</I>><i> "ip rule add from 0.0.0.0/0 lookup bit-bucket type blackhole."
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Then when I see what's done with "ip rule ls" it says:
</I>><i>
</I>><i> "from all lookup bit-bucket blackhole"
</I>><i>
</I>><i> I suppose that's OK. Just seems a bit stilted. Does it matter that the
</I>><i> bit-bucket table might not contain any routes? In the case of a blackhole route,
</I>><i> does the kernel even perform the table lookup? Would leaving the default main in
</I>><i> have been OK?
</I>><i>
</I>><i> -Andrew
</I>><i>
</I>><i> _______________________________________________
</I>><i> LARTC mailing list / <A HREF="mailto:LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl">LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl</A>
</I>><i> <A HREF="http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc">http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc</A> HOWTO: <A HREF="http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/">http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/</A>
</I>
Why not use the "default" table? It's empty anyway, it just seems "right".
Anyone know something about this I haven't thought of??
</PRE>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-11-17 12:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-11-13 22:58 [LARTC] A complicated routing scenario (for me at least) Andrew
2000-11-14 14:34 ` Arthur
2000-11-14 14:44 ` Wingtung.Leung
2000-11-14 20:15 ` Andrew
2000-11-14 21:47 ` Whit
2000-11-14 23:10 ` Wingtung.Leung
2000-11-15 10:49 ` Arthur
2000-11-15 11:27 ` Arthur
2000-11-15 14:57 ` Warren
2000-11-15 19:20 ` Andrew
2000-11-15 19:30 ` Arthur
2000-11-15 20:11 ` Andrew
2000-11-17 1:07 ` Andrew
2000-11-17 12:11 ` Mike
2000-11-17 12:24 ` Mike [this message]
2000-11-17 13:00 ` Arthur
2000-11-17 21:25 ` Mike
2000-11-18 16:28 ` Warren
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=marc-lartc-98373938216944@msgid-missing \
--to=lartc@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.