From owner-freebsd-current Sat May 1 11:51:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 982CC14CC3 for ; Sat, 1 May 1999 11:51:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.2/8.9.1) id UAA35961; Sat, 1 May 1999 20:51:43 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: "Daniel C. Sobral" Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav , Lars Fredriksen , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: default route not set up?? References: <372A1AE6.4E2738D4@odin-corporation.com> <372AF60B.E11A6989@newsguy.com> <372B1E6B.263A3B19@newsguy.com> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 01 May 1999 20:51:42 +0200 In-Reply-To: "Daniel C. Sobral"'s message of "Sun, 02 May 1999 00:31:55 +0900" Message-ID: Lines: 22 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Daniel C. Sobral" writes: > Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > "Daniel C. Sobral" writes: > > > Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > > > [exerpt from /etc/rc.network] > > > Looking there, it *does* seem that there is a problem. defaultrouter > > > is only used to set route_default, which is *not* used. At least on > > > the code you quoted. > > This is getting fun :) Look closer at the first line I commented, then > > at the loop, and especially the eval. > That's tricky, indeed. You should have commented the line below the > second line, not the second line. :-) Yep. I was similarly miffed the first time I read this code, but I thought 'hey, it works, so it has to be right' and read it over until I was enlightened. I still find it slightly spaghetti. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message