* Documentation: is there a reason to keep networking/policy-routing.txt
@ 2014-06-25 14:47 Paul Bolle
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Paul Bolle @ 2014-06-25 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Randy Dunlap; +Cc: linux-doc, netdev
0) Documentation/networking/policy-routing.txt was added in v2.1.16.
Since then it has only received spelling fixes. That shows. I'll list
the issues I noticed below. Perhaps this file could be updated, and that
might even be trivial to do. But is that file still relevant? And
besides, why bother to keep documentation that appears to be
unmaintained for 18 years now?
1) RT_CLASS_LOCAL, RT_CLASS_MAIN, and RT_CLASS_DEFAULT: should probably
be RT_TABLE_LOCAL, etc.
2) RTP_ROUTE, RTP_NAT, RTP_MASQUERADE, RTP_DROP, RTP_REJECT, and
RTP_PROHIBIT: cannot be found in the tree.
3) RTRF_LOG, and RTRF_VALVE: ditto.
4) It mentions an iproute command. I'm familiar with route and "ip
route". Fedora doesn't ship an iproute command. Web searches for it are
hard, but it appears to have shipped in (old releases of) Debian.
5) The "IMPORTANT NOTE" about CONFIG_IP_LOCAL_RT_POLICY is obsolete
since v2.1.68.
Paul Bolle
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2014-06-25 14:47 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-06-25 14:47 Documentation: is there a reason to keep networking/policy-routing.txt Paul Bolle
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).