On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 09:51 +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote: > On 12/18/2009 03:14 PM, Daniel Drake wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 14:22 -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > >> What would you expect the routing table to look like in your case? I > >> suppose we could do a default route for link-local. Not sure if that > >> will confuse apps that expect a default route to mean an internet > >> connection though. > > > > I would expect the subnet route, as NM is creating already: > > dest=169.254.0.0 > > gateway=0.0.0.0 > > genmask=255.255.0.0 > > > > I would also like the routing table to either include a default route: > > dest=0.0.0 > > gateway=0.0.0.0 > > genmask=0.0.0.0 > > > > or a multicast one: > > dest=224.0.0.0 > > gateway=0.0.0.0 > > genmask=240.0.0.0 > > > > The routing table that NM is setting up now is reasonable, in my > > opinion, but there should be some way of customizing the behaviour in > > the settings object. > > > > Daniel > > Hi, > > what is the status on this one? Was there a conclusion on whether NM > should set a default route for link local?
Creating a multicast route by default on link-local IPv4 connections seems reasonable. Want to do a patch for that? I'd say just add the desired route in aipd_get_ip4_config() in src/nm-device.c to the returned NMIP4Config object and then lets make sure the code that adds routes works correctly there. Dan _______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
