From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Sep 2 22:49:52 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA20225 for freebsd-stable-outgoing; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 22:49:52 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from word.smith.net.au (castles138.castles.com [208.214.165.138]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA20205 for ; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 22:49:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@word.smith.net.au) Received: from word.smith.net.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by word.smith.net.au (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA00404; Wed, 2 Sep 1998 22:45:37 GMT (envelope-from mike@word.smith.net.au) Message-Id: <199809022245.WAA00404@word.smith.net.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Don cc: Tom , freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: How to add route In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:37:53 -0400." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 22:45:36 +0000 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I usually add routes by using the format: > route add / > > But What about in the case of the the localnet? > When adding a route for the local network I have always used: > route add / -interface > > Should i instead be specifying the localhost as the gateway? You don't add routes for directly connected networks; there's an implicit route courtesy of the existence of the interface. I think this is contra to the way Linux works (requiring an explicit route for anything). -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message