* route trouble with kernel @ 2005-06-28 12:57 cigarette Chan 2005-06-28 13:45 ` Richard B. Johnson 2005-06-28 14:00 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: cigarette Chan @ 2005-06-28 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: route trouble with kernel 2005-06-28 12:57 route trouble with kernel cigarette Chan @ 2005-06-28 13:45 ` Richard B. Johnson 2005-06-29 2:17 ` Benbenshi 2005-06-28 14:00 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Richard B. Johnson @ 2005-06-28 13:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cigarette Chan; +Cc: Linux kernel It could be argued that if `iptables` retains its parameters after its only interface has been shut down it's a bug. The fact that no routes remain after a network interface has been shut down is both logical and in conformance with de facto Unix standards. This is partially as a result of route's manipulating flags (the UP flag would be wrong if the interface was down). I can't imagine that you have so many routes that it takes a significant amount of time to reset them using a script. If so, you probably have a configuration error where you are not properly using netmasks. Certainly, you shouldn't have to establish a host-route for every host on your network. You only need a network route (out the interface) and a default route that goes to some router to get out of your LAN. Even if you __are__ a router, the network setup remains about the same, only the user-mode software changes, which may dynamically alter the routing tables. On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, cigarette Chan wrote: > 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. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.12 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips). Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush. 98.36% of all statistics are fiction. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: route trouble with kernel 2005-06-28 13:45 ` Richard B. Johnson @ 2005-06-29 2:17 ` Benbenshi 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Benbenshi @ 2005-06-29 2:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-os, linux-kernel, zhuangyy Richard B. Johnson wrote: > > It could be argued that if `iptables` retains its > parameters after its only interface has been shut > down it's a bug. > > The fact that no routes remain after a network > interface has been shut down is both logical > and in conformance with de facto Unix standards. > This is partially as a result of route's manipulating > flags (the UP flag would be wrong if the interface > was down). > > I can't imagine that you have so many routes > that it takes a significant amount of time to > reset them using a script. If so, you probably > have a configuration error where you are > not properly using netmasks. Certainly, you > shouldn't have to establish a host-route for > every host on your network. You only need a > network route (out the interface) and a > default route that goes to some router to get > out of your LAN. Even if you __are__ a router, > the network setup remains about the same, > only the user-mode software changes, which > may dynamically alter the routing tables. > > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, cigarette Chan wrote: > >> 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. > > > Cheers, > Dick Johnson > Penguin : Linux version 2.6.12 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips). > Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush. > 98.36% of all statistics are fiction. > my host is a vpn gateway, and i have several virtual interface to run vpn. ie tap0, tap1.... I have to add routes to these TAPs to make vpn work. but after i restart the tapX, i have to re-add routes relate to this interface~ If i have to maintain several vpn and lots of TAPs , So i need a simple way to maintian route tables. sometimes it's quite diffcult to do this with shell scipts ,especially when it's quite complex. thanks~ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: route trouble with kernel 2005-06-28 12:57 route trouble with kernel cigarette Chan 2005-06-28 13:45 ` Richard B. Johnson @ 2005-06-28 14:00 ` Valdis.Kletnieks 1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Valdis.Kletnieks @ 2005-06-28 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cigarette Chan; +Cc: linux-kernel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1108 bytes --] 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. 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.... [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-06-29 2:23 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-06-28 12:57 route trouble with kernel cigarette Chan 2005-06-28 13:45 ` Richard B. Johnson 2005-06-29 2:17 ` Benbenshi 2005-06-28 14:00 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox