From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261530AbVF2Bdh (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:33:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261191AbVF2Bb3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:31:29 -0400 Received: from [218.94.38.158] ([218.94.38.158]:61073 "EHLO xianan.com.cn") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261594AbVF2B3Z (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Jun 2005 21:29:25 -0400 X-AuthUser: chengq@xianan.com.cn Message-ID: <42C1F91D.4060609@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:27:57 +0800 From: Benbenshi User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re:Re: route trouble with kernel Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >>On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 20:57:04 +0800, cigarette Chan said: >> >> > > >>>>i add a route to the kernel >>>>eg: # route add -net XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX/24 gw XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX dev eth1 >>>> >>>>but after i restart eth1 >>>> >>>>#ifdown eth1 >>>>#ifup eth1 >>>> >>>>the route disappear,this make me a lot of troubles.i have several >>>>interfaces,and i have to >>>>re-add all of these routes... >>>> >>>>Is there any way or patches to make route work like iptables,after i >>>>restart the interface, >>>>rules are still there. >>>> >>>> >> >> >> >>Your system should have a way of doing this in a callout during the ifup >>and ifdown scripts. Under Fedora, ifup calls ifup-post, which calls >>/sbin/ifup-local - you could add your routes there. >> >> >> > > nerver used Fedora before. On my Debian sarge, ifup will call /etc/network/interfaces, which looks like follow: ################################ auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.10.200 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.10.255 network 192.168.10.0 gateway 192.168.10.1 ############################### with this script,ifup know how to add default gateway to the route table. Is that your mean ? >>More importantly, routes are different from iptables. At worst, an iptable >>rule has a dangling '-i ethX' match that will fail if the interface is down, >>but that's a harmless because the packet isn't from that interface. >> >>On the other hand, what is the kernel supposed to do with a route that >>points to a down'ed ethX after you've done the ifdown, but before you've >>done the ifup? It may as well clear routes to the down'ed interface.... >> >> > > If ethX was down, can kernel just drop the packages to ethX ? Is there anything wrong with kernel to work like this ? Thanks for your great reply.