Re: Duplicate routes

Mark H. Wood (mwood@IUPUI.Edu)
Sat, 20 Feb 1999 06:22:33 -0500 (EST)


On Sat, 20 Feb 1999, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 1999 13:58:58 -0500 (EST),
> "Mark H. Wood" <mwood@IUPUI.Edu> wrote:
> >On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Keith Owens wrote:
> >> Compare the output below from route -n and iproute list. The entries
> >
> >What's an "iproute"? Is that anything like "ip route", which a few people
> >have been telling us to use?
>
> iproute, ipaddr etc. are symbolic links to the ip command. iproute is
> equivalent to ip route. And yes, this is the code described in policy
> routing.

Since the ip command kit has no installation procedure and no usage
documentation, there are no such symlinks on my system. How would I have
known to do this? Was any of this announced anywhere? Did I accidentally
sleep through November and miss it all?

I'm starting to understand what happened, but I feel like I've been
eavesdropping on a private conversation. I don't recall any discussion of
breaking the more-or-less standard tools and providing an incompatible
replacement, or of making incompatible changes to the kernel. It may all
be fine work, but lots of us never heard about it. I'm particularly
worried that so many of the "usual suspects" on Linux-Kernel never caught
wind of these significant changes to the kernel. Who should be getting
the word out, and how can we encourage him to do so?

-- 
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer   mwood@IUPUI.Edu
Specializing in unusual perspectives for more than twenty years.

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/