* iproute2 query
@ 2016-02-19 9:12 Marcus Furlong
2016-02-21 20:05 ` Stephen Hemminger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Marcus Furlong @ 2016-02-19 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev
Hi,
Just wondering if the following command should work:
# ip route add 192.168.27.27/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.27.27
RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
However, this command works:
# ip route add 192.168.27.0/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.27.27
192.168.27.0/24 and 192.168.27.27/24 describe the same subnet?
Regards,
Marcus.
--
Marcus Furlong
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: iproute2 query
2016-02-19 9:12 iproute2 query Marcus Furlong
@ 2016-02-21 20:05 ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-02-23 0:19 ` Marcus Furlong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2016-02-21 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Marcus Furlong; +Cc: netdev
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:12:04 +1100
Marcus Furlong <furlongm@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just wondering if the following command should work:
>
> # ip route add 192.168.27.27/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.27.27
> RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
>
> However, this command works:
>
> # ip route add 192.168.27.0/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.27.27
>
> 192.168.27.0/24 and 192.168.27.27/24 describe the same subnet?
>
> Regards,
> Marcus.
>
It is the kernel complaining, not ip command.
The kernel will not accept 192.168.27.27/24 as route since it is a full
network address, not an network prefix.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: iproute2 query
2016-02-21 20:05 ` Stephen Hemminger
@ 2016-02-23 0:19 ` Marcus Furlong
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Marcus Furlong @ 2016-02-23 0:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Hemminger; +Cc: netdev
On 22 February 2016 at 07:05, Stephen Hemminger
<stephen@networkplumber.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:12:04 +1100
> Marcus Furlong <furlongm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just wondering if the following command should work:
>>
>> # ip route add 192.168.27.27/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.27.27
>> RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
>>
>> However, this command works:
>>
>> # ip route add 192.168.27.0/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.27.27
>>
>> 192.168.27.0/24 and 192.168.27.27/24 describe the same subnet?
>>
>
> It is the kernel complaining, not ip command.
> The kernel will not accept 192.168.27.27/24 as route since it is a full
> network address, not an network prefix.
Would it be a bad idea for the ip command to validate the data, and
only submit the network bits to the kernel?
Regards,
Marcus.
--
Marcus Furlong
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-02-23 0:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-02-19 9:12 iproute2 query Marcus Furlong
2016-02-21 20:05 ` Stephen Hemminger
2016-02-23 0:19 ` Marcus Furlong
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).