On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, der Mouse wrote:

> >> The problem is that -interface doesn't take an interface name; it
> >> takes an interface local address.  [...]
> > Are we all on the same page?  [...]  We're discussing options to
> > route(8), aren't we?
> 
> Right.  Specifically, I'm working from
> 
> 	.\"	$NetBSD: route.8,v 1.6 1995/03/18 15:00:13 cgd Exp $
> 
> The text in question is
> 
> 	If the destination is directly reachable
> 	via an interface requiring
> 	no intermediary system to act as a gateway, the 
> 	.Fl interface
> 	modifier should be specified;
> 	the gateway given is the address of this host on the common network,
> 	indicating the interface to be used for transmission.

NOW I finally see this text. :-)

> I do notice -ifp and -ifa options in that file
> 
> 	In a
> 	.Cm change
> 	or
> 	.Cm add
> 	command where the destination and gateway are not sufficient to specify
> 	the route (as in the
> 	.Tn ISO
> 	case where several interfaces may have the
> 	same address), the
> 	.Fl ifp
> 	or
> 	.Fl ifa
> 	modifiers may be used to determine the interface or interface address.
> 
> but no indication is given of what sort of argument(s) they might take,
> rendering them...less than useful.

I'd guess, from that last sentance, that ifp'd take something like "ed0",
and ifa'd take whatever the interface address looks like for that
protocol.

> I just checked -current, and find that the route.8 there is
> 
> 	.\"     $NetBSD: route.8,v 1.11 1997/08/27 06:38:06 mikel Exp $
> 
> However, diffing that against the route.8 I mentioned above does not
> show any differences relevant to this discussion.

Thanks!

a less-confused Bill