From: bert hubert <ahu@ds9a.nl>
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Request for TEXT: [LARTC] "onlink" option for ip route
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 14:14:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-lartc-98552976605954@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-lartc-98546988301347@msgid-missing>
On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 12:43:07AM -0300, Rogerio Brito wrote:
> On Mar 24 2001, bert hubert wrote:
> > If someone manages to write a reasonable explanation for the
> > 'onlink' option, I'll put it in the HOWTO ASAP.
>
> As far as I understand it, the situation is as follows:
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Sometimes, you may want to send packets via a machine
> (i.e., a gateway) which is physically connected to your
> network, but to which you don't specifically have a route in
> your kernel routing table.
I'm more confused then ever!
Alexey says this:
A: Yes, in 2.2 the rule that {\em normal} gateway must reside on directly
connected network has not any exceptions. You may tell kernel, that
this particular route is {\em abnormal}:
\begin{verbatim}
ifconfig tunl0 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.255
ip route add 10.0.0.0/8 via 193.233.7.65 dev tunl0 onlink
\end{verbatim}
Note keyword \verb|onlink|, it is the magic key that orders kernel
not to check for consistency of gateway address.
Probably, after this explanation you have already guessed another method
to cheat kernel:
\begin{verbatim}
ifconfig tunl0 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.255
route add -host 193.233.7.65 dev tunl0
route add -net 10.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 gw 193.233.7.65
route del -host 193.233.7.65 dev tunl0
\end{verbatim}
Well, if you like such tricks, nobody may prohibit you to use them.
Only do not forget
that between \verb|route add| and \verb|route del| host 193.233.7.65 is
unreachable.
However, our HOWTO says this:
ip tunnel add netb mode gre remote 172.19.20.21 local 172.16.17.18 ttl 255
ip link set netb up
ip addr add 10.0.1.1 dev netb
ip route add 10.0.2.0/24 dev netb
We don't use onlink - might it be that 'onlink' is only useful for ipip
tunnels?
> Please let me know if this is acceptable. I could write with
> more details (giving a more concrete example), but I'm very
> busy right now. :-(
Once this is cleared up, your text will do fine. Thanks!
Regards,
bert
--
http://www.PowerDNS.com Versatile DNS Services
Trilab The Technology People
'SYN! .. SYN|ACK! .. ACK!' - the mating call of the internet
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://ds9a.nl/2.4Routing/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-25 14:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-24 21:36 Request for TEXT: [LARTC] "onlink" option for ip route bert hubert
2001-03-25 3:43 ` Rogerio Brito
2001-03-25 14:14 ` bert hubert [this message]
2001-03-25 17:25 ` Guy Van Den Bergh
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-98552976605954@msgid-missing \
--to=ahu@ds9a.nl \
--cc=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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox