On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 04:19:34PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 03:27:00PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > And, after re-reading this bugzilla report, I'm pretty sure the thing > > > should be done with 'ip route change' (but I didn't check if 2.6.24 > > > knows about this...). > > > > $ man ip > > [...] > > ip route add - add new route > > ip route change - change route > > ip route replace - change or add new one > > [...] > > > > According to this "replace" should be a superset of "change". > > According to this "replace" should be ...ambiguous. I could read this > "my/proper(?) way": > > ip route replace - change with new one or add new one > > And ...man could be wrong too after all! (...but not me!)
After some checks it seems man is right - ie. WRT iproute.c! (...hmm?) And you read this right: '"replace" should be a superset of "change"'. > > Also, please check out comment#3, it also fails for replacing a route > > with something different (it's a route to an ipsec tunnel). But comment#3 is "ambiguous"... It looks like you don't want to show us too much... So, apparently you change the route, but it seems this route exists; you have this: 10.0.0.0/8 dev eth0 scope link but probably also something like this: default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0 src 10.204.0.116 So, I doubt there is any "real" change attempted here. It looks more like a question if program should allow for changing the form of route entries even if they mean the same, and if this should be reported as error at all? But maybe I miss something... Jarek P. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
