From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9816] New: cannot replace route Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:11:26 +0100 Message-ID: <20080127011126.GA3408@ami.dom.local> References: <20080125142603.a73fd7a2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <479A6CBD.4010908@gmail.com> <20080125192026.e667f396.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080126114036.GA2624@ami.dom.local> <20080126141010.GC2624@ami.dom.local> <20080126151934.GA2969@ami.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Joonwoo Park , Andrew Morton , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org To: Andreas Schwab Return-path: Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.214.233]:22978 "EHLO hu-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751407AbYA0BI5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:08:57 -0500 Received: by hu-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 19so709011hue.21 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:08:54 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080126151934.GA2969@ami.dom.local> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 04:19:34PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 03:27:00PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > Jarek Poplawski writes: > > > > > And, after re-reading this bugzilla report, I'm pretty sure the thing > > > should be done with 'ip route change' (but I didn't check if 2.6.24 > > > knows about this...). > > > > $ man ip > > [...] > > ip route add - add new route > > ip route change - change route > > ip route replace - change or add new one > > [...] > > > > According to this "replace" should be a superset of "change". > > According to this "replace" should be ...ambiguous. I could read this > "my/proper(?) way": > > ip route replace - change with new one or add new one > > And ...man could be wrong too after all! (...but not me!) After some checks it seems man is right - ie. WRT iproute.c! (...hmm?) And you read this right: '"replace" should be a superset of "change"'. > > Also, please check out comment#3, it also fails for replacing a route > > with something different (it's a route to an ipsec tunnel). But comment#3 is "ambiguous"... It looks like you don't want to show us too much... So, apparently you change the route, but it seems this route exists; you have this: 10.0.0.0/8 dev eth0 scope link but probably also something like this: default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0 src 10.204.0.116 So, I doubt there is any "real" change attempted here. It looks more like a question if program should allow for changing the form of route entries even if they mean the same, and if this should be reported as error at all? But maybe I miss something... Jarek P.