[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090722095040.GC3517@psychotron.englab.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:50:41 +0200
From: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, pekkas@...core.fi, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
kaber@...sh.net
Subject: [RFC] IPv6 route replacement
Hello guys.
I would like to hear your opinion on the following:
[root@f11 ~]# ip -6 route list 3ffe::1:1
[root@f11 ~]# ip -6 route add 3ffe::1:1 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe4c:3108 dev eth0 metric 1024
[root@f11 ~]# ip -6 route list 3ffe::1:1
3ffe::1:1 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe4c:3108 dev eth0 metric 1024 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
[root@f11 ~]# ip -6 route change 3ffe::1:1 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe4c:3108 dev eth0 metric 100
[root@f11 ~]# ip -6 route list 3ffe::1:1
3ffe::1:1 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe4c:3108 dev eth0 metric 100 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
3ffe::1:1 via fe80::20c:29ff:fe4c:3108 dev eth0 metric 1024 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295
[root@f11 ~]#
Now do you think this is the right behaviour? I would expect the first route to
be replaced. The same result is when you do "ip -6 route replace"
Thanks
Jirka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists