Subject: Re: routing
To: Dustin Sallings <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/08/1997 18:02:28
On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Dustin Sallings wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 1997, Peter Seebach wrote:
> # >The route command accepts a flag "-interface", where instead of
> # >specifying a remote gateway to the destination, you specify the local
> # >address of an interface which will be used to transmit to the directly
> # >reachable destination.
> # >Does that already do what you want, or am I missing something?
Has this changed recently? I just checked the man pages from a -current
system from early June (the June i386 1.2G snapshot), and it mentions (in
passing) an -ifp and an -ifa option to achieve what everyone's talking
Assuming I understand the subject. :-)
> # Not if you have several interfaces with the same IP address, which is a
> # fairly common approach to PPP; i.e., le0 would be 188.8.131.52, ppp0
> # would be 184.108.40.206<->220.127.116.11, etc etc.
> I'm confused. Why would this change just because you have more
> than one interface with the same IP address? If you tell it to go out a
> particular interface, which the -interface flag is documented to do, then
> who cares what the address of that function is, as long as the packet goes
> out it?
I think the earlier discussion of how the interface command worked was you
gave it the IP address for an interface. If you have multiple interfaces
w/ the same address, you've not achieved your goal of sending the route
via a particular interface.