Hi,
>127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
It's like this in redhat, as I just checked it out.
However, NET3-4-HOWTO-5 about loopback routes:
root# ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1
root# route add -host 127.0.0.1 lo
Hm, two choices. Either the loopnet, or the loopback method. Seems like both of
them work. It used to be without the "lo" in the end, probably back in like 5
years ago, on Slackware. Well, I didn't even have loopback route on one of the
hosts, and it worked with no problem.
Well, this was defininitely a broken route for some reason. First I didn't
examine the whole line, that's why I didn't really get what the problem was
with having a loopnet route. But as Derek pointed it out, true. I should learn
how to read finally:-).
>Not a particularly useful route to have, as nearly as I can tell. In fact,
>if someone can provide a real-world situation where rejecting any route is
>useful, I'd like to know it! I can't think of one.
I'm wondering how it gets rejected...by a router on the other end of the cable?
Then it would make some sense. Otherwise why not just use route del?
Ferenc
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
