Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 11:12:47 -0400 From: dennis@etinc.com (Dennis) To: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: interfaces, routes, etc. Message-ID: <199607191512.LAA27956@etinc.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> On a different note.. >> >> Is there anyone working on or thinking about being able to point >> routes at an interface rather than an address? i.e. >> >> route add 211.17.12.1 -interface ed0 >> >> or something similar? With aliasing and all this talk of NMBA its >> going to be a larger and larger issue. You can do this in LINUX and >> it makes life easier and is much more readable as well. Its particularly >> useful for setting up routing when interfaces don't yet have addresses >> (ie they are learning them via RARP, or INVARP). >> >> Dennis >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com > >I have wondered this myself. Especially for a point-to-point link, >there's no reason (except the arcane FreeBSD routing code) why you >shouldn't be able to say "if it's going to XYZ, send it out THAT >interface", letting the link layer handle the link layer addressing. > >It wouldn't be hard to modify "route" to accept either type of >argument... the question is, does the kernel store interface >routes using the actual address or using a pointer to the interface? You have to do it without trashing the "gateway" concept of passing info to devices. Dennis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com Synchronous Communications Cards and Routers For Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25 for BSD/OS, FreeBSD and LINUX
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607191512.LAA27956>