Subject: Re: routing
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 09/10/1997 13:49:17
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
> .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
> .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
> 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.
a less-confused Bill