http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572205 http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572205#c10 --- Comment #10 from Marius Tomaschewski <mt@novell.com> 2010-01-22 15:06:31 UTC --- Created an attachment (id=338310) --> (http://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=338310) Improved patch to consider protos that the user may set in routes file (In reply to comment #9)
PPPoE1:~ # ip r l proto boot 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0.10 scope link 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link default via a.b.c.d dev eth0.11
So .. i thing it could be a combination of proto boot and proto kernel.
No, proto kernel is not really interesting and can be skipped too; this are routes set by the kernel automatically.
Proto static i don't have anyware. When proto static should be setted? Theoreticaly all staticaly routes should be setted with proto static.. but .. even static routes installed via zebra they are setted with proto zebra.
All routes that don't have any proto visible (as usually set by ifup) in "ip r l", are of type "proto boot" (not "unspec" as I was thinking in comment 5). The user can set "proto static" (or whatever) in the routes file, e.g.: 172.16.10.0/24 172.16.1.200 - br0 proto static See also "man 8 ip" (search for RTPROTO): redirect - the route was installed due to an ICMP redirect. kernel - the route was installed by the kernel during autoconfiguration. boot - the route was installed during the bootup sequence. If a routing daemon starts, it will purge all of them. static - the route was installed by the administrator to override dynamic routing. Routing daemon will respect them and, probably, even advertise them to its peers. ra - the route was installed by Router Discovery protocol. So for ifstatus, only "proto boot" (no proto visible) and all that are used in routes file are interesting. I think the attached patch implements it correctly. Can you test it please? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.