Date: 01 Oct 2001 11:56:27 -0700 From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Diff between "route" command's -iface and -interface options. Message-ID: <47d747gpes.747@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20011001171906.A57416@sunbay.com> References: <nsofnsgvbv.fns@localhost.localdomain> <20011001171906.A57416@sunbay.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks for responding. For reference, you said:
> They are synonyms, and also have a side effect on accepting "gateway"
> argument in the "interface" address format.
1) I plan to insert a line in the "flags" table thusly:
-iface ~RTF_GATEWAY - destination is directly reachable
-interface - a synonym for -iface
-static RTF_STATIC - manually added route
2) I plan to change this existing paragraph:
If the destination is directly reachable via an interface requiring no
intermediary system to act as a gateway, the -interface modifier should
be specified; the gateway given is the address of this host on the common
network, indicating the interface to be used for transmission. Alter-
nately, if the interface is point to point the name of the interface
itself may be given, in which case the route remains valid even if the
local or remote addresses change.
From what you said above and from some "route" commands I've seen, it
looks like the "gateway" argument should be an interface name when
-iface/-interface is used and so I'm confused by "the gateway given is
the address of this host on the common network" phrase, especially as
contrasted to the latter use of "name of the interface itself" for p-to-p.
Being bold enough to guess it's either very unclear or simply wrong, I
propose this alternate paragraph:
If the destination is directly reachable via an interface requiring no
intermediary system to act as a gateway, the -iface (or equivilant
-interface) modifier should be used and the gateway should be specified
as the interface name; the route then remains valid even if the local or
remote addresses change.
OK? I hope that doesn't cut too much. I'm not sure what's "must" and
what's "may" for either multi-cast or point-to-point, and I waffled with
"should" for both. If it should say more, I'll need some guidance.
3) If I ever make time to try to clear up some other things in this man
page, should I communicate directly with you before writing PRs or
should I just write the PRs (maybe after getting input from -questions
or -stable)?
Thanks.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47d747gpes.747>