Re: How to set default gw not by route command in linux?
- From: floyd@xxxxxxxxxx (Floyd L. Davidson)
- Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:03:08 -0900
ibuprofin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Moe Trin) wrote:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in
article <877ixmylfr.fld@xxxxxxxxxx>, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Unruh <unruh-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why do you set gateways for both? Gateways are for default routes. You can
only have one default route. The last one set.
It has *nothing* to do with a default, other than that a default route
has to have a gateway specified.
Beg your pardon Floyd, but _EVERY_ Linux distribution uses the keyword
"gateway" to _mean_ the gateway to the default route. I will certainly
agree that this is an incorrect interpretation, but that can't change
many years of mis-use.
It is incorrect, and it is *not* universally used incorrectly.
It is a narrow *understanding* of what is being said that is
wrong in most instances, not the actual usage.
The default route *requires* a gateway. Specifying a "gateway"
that is for the default route, can of course only be done one
time. Stretching that to insinuate that the route table as a
whole can have only one gateway specified is false.
What if he needs that gateway to access a non-directly connected
physical network?
Then his network is not the typical home setup, which is what most of
the "helper" programs assume.
That was not specified. It makes no difference anyway, as what
his network is or is not is not what defines how a Linux route
table works. Regardless, as you next paragraph indicates, that is
*not* an atypical home network.
If someone actually does have multiple
networks on a home system (more common now with wireless) then these
simple minded "helper" tools may get it wrong.
Yes, it is indeed *very* common with wireless setups...
That's been a problem
since a number of early Linux distributions at least as far back as
the mid-90s. Certainly Red Hat 1.1 (Mothers-Day) from the summer of
1995 had this problem, as did Slackware 3.2 (go check the CHANGELOG
So you are saying that a whole decade ago Patrick Volkerding
corrected the way he did it in Slackware. Pretty telling, eh?
file). Then if you check windoze, microsoft has gotten it wrong since
they invented the Internet (or whatever) in 1995.
Another *great* example.
What is your point? The fact is that multiple gateways in the
route table has *always* been acceptable. Claiming you can't
have more than one just because the default route requires a
gateway is freaking ridiculous.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How to set default gw not by route command in linux?
- From: Pascal Hambourg
- Re: How to set default gw not by route command in linux?
- From: Moe Trin
- Re: How to set default gw not by route command in linux?
- References:
- How to set default gw not by route command in linux?
- From: ChaoZhang
- Re: How to set default gw not by route command in linux?
- From: Unruh
- Re: How to set default gw not by route command in linux?
- From: Floyd L. Davidson
- Re: How to set default gw not by route command in linux?
- From: Moe Trin
- How to set default gw not by route command in linux?
- Prev by Date: Re: weird iptables behaviour
- Next by Date: Re: How to set default gw not by route command in linux?
- Previous by thread: Re: How to set default gw not by route command in linux?
- Next by thread: Re: How to set default gw not by route command in linux?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
