Comment # 4 on bug 1231060 from Marius Tomaschewski

OK, I found the place:
```
4ab4d079e7 (Marius Tomaschewski       2013-06-14 17:56:19 +0200 1937)   if
(rp->destination.ss_family != AF_UNSPEC && rp->prefixlen != 0) {
4ab4d079e7 (Marius Tomaschewski       2013-06-14 17:56:19 +0200 1938)          
xml_node_new_element("destination", rnode,
4ab4d079e7 (Marius Tomaschewski       2013-06-14 17:56:19 +0200 1939)          
        ni_sockaddr_prefix_print(&rp->destination, rp->prefixlen));
8ca9ddeba2 (Marius Tomaschewski       2013-05-24 15:24:35 +0200 1940)   }
```

The ` && rp->prefixlen != 0` is  simply wrong, 0.0.0.0/0 has AF_INET
family, ::/0 has AF_INET6 family with all-zero destination address
and prefix length.

The omitted destination in xml causes to discarded the route later,
because the route does not have any destination family:

55a1eb3db9 (Marius Tomaschewski       2013-06-14 22:40:08 +0200 1193)   if
(rp->destination.ss_family == AF_UNSPEC) {
aa252a25ca (Marius Tomaschewski       2013-06-21 08:38:26 +0200 1194)          
ni_debug_dbus("%s: unknown route destination family", __func__);
55a1eb3db9 (Marius Tomaschewski       2013-06-14 22:40:08 +0200 1195)          
goto failure;
55a1eb3db9 (Marius Tomaschewski       2013-06-14 22:40:08 +0200 1196)   }

(In reply to Iakov Karpov from comment #0)
> I have a static unreachable route configured in
> /etc/sysconfig/network/routes.
> The network is brought up with wicked. It seems that at some point it
> stopped picking up unreachable or blackhole routes.

I guess, you were using another destination than 0.0.0.0/0 before...

BTW: In order to consider an unreachable route for e.g. eth0 only, add
an `man 5 ip rule` entering the next0 table via `man 5 ifrule` config.