Re: [LARTC] iproute2: gatewayed routes in ancillary tables

["Martin A. Brown" <mabrown-lartc@securepipe.com>]

Hello Julian,

 : > It seems that unless a route to the gateway IP exists in the main routing
 : > table, I cannot add a route through the gateway IP, even if there is a
 : > route to the destination in the ancillary routing table.
 :
 : 	Because when we create a route we need to know the right scope to
 : assign to the new nexthop. Once it is known we don't need the route to
 : the gateway (and you can delete it). You can see that there is such
 : comment in the code:

Where in the code?

 : It is not necessary, but requires a bit of thinking
 :
 : 	IMO, this check is necessary because without seeing the
 : route to the gateway we can not know whether this gateway is:

I still don't understand....the nexthop for the new route already exists
in the table I have specified.

Why couldn't we see the route to the gateway in the specified table?

 : - local IP (and the resulting route should be device-only, GW IP
 : is ignored)
 :
 : - unicast IP (and the resulting route should be via device and GW IP)

I am using the parameter "via" in the problematic route statement.
Doesn't that implicitly mean that the route is a unicast IP route?

My understanding is that the destination is distinctly not a local IP,
because of the presence of the parameter "via" in the nexthop definition.

 : 	If you do not like this policy you can use static routes
 : to solve the problem.

And now I'm really feeling like a dunce!  I understand "proto static" (I
think), but I don't see how that would solve this problem.

Thanks for any insight, Julian,

-Martin

-- 
Martin A. Brown --- SecurePipe, Inc. --- mabrown@securepipe.com

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