[LARTC] A bug in ip?

[Andrew andrewd@uccsda.org]

<PRE>OK. I posted this under the old subject, but no one answered. Let's try again.

Season's Greetings:

If anyone is still watching this thread &quot;A complicated routing scenario (for me
at least)&quot;, I'm still working on my setup. Today I
have a very specific question:

I execute the following command at the prompt:

ip rule add from 100.100.100.80/29 to 10.5.5.0/24 iif eth0 lookup dmz-lan
priority 230

Then I run the following:

&gt;<i>ip rule ls
</I>
Which among other things lists the following for the rule I just added above:

&gt;<i>230:  from 100.100.100.80/24 to 10.5.5.0/24 iif eth0 lookup dmz-lan  (it IS typed correctly)
</I>
Furthermore if I try to run the following going off the output of ip rule ls
above:

&gt;<i>ip rule delete from 100.100.100.80/24 to 10.5.5.0/24 iif eth0
</I>\x03
I get the following answer:

&gt;<i>RTNETLINK answers: no such process
</I>
But if I run the command modified slightly as follows:

&gt;<i>ip rule delete from 100.100.100.80/29 to 10.5.5.0/24 iif eth0
</I>
It works (deletes the rule) and ip rule ls verfies that it no longer exists.


What is going on?! It seems to me that ip rule ls should match what I put in
with ip rule add.
Why isn't it?

BTW. all the above IP addresses are completely bogus.

Thanks for the help!

-Andrew
-- 
<A HREF="mailto:depaan@bibleinfo.com">depaan@bibleinfo.com</A>
--------------------------------------------------------------
Want answers to life's big questions? Visit www.bibleinfo.com.


</PRE>