Hey! Any news on this? I'm opening another (unrelated) bug on iproute2 (or two), and I was wondering how this one was doing.
Thanks :) On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 16:37:43 +0000 "=?utf-8?B?Q2zDqW1lbnQgSGVydGxpbmcgKFd4Y2Fmw6kp?=" <wxc...@wxcafe.net> wrote: > Ah, another thing. The behavior that ip route get shows right now is also > incorrect in the following way: > > ``` > $ ip route show > # [...] > 192.168.1.0/24 dev enp0s31f6 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.156 metric > 100 > # [...] > > $ ip route get 192.168.1.22/28 > 192.168.1.22 dev enp0s31f6 src 192.168.1.156 uid 1000 > cache > > $ ip route get 192.168.1.22/24 > 192.168.1.22 dev enp0s31f6 src 192.168.1.156 uid 1000 > cache > ``` > > both should return either > > ``` > 192.168.1.0/24 dev enp0s31f6 src 192.168.1.156 uid 1000 > ``` > > (preferred), or > > ``` > 192.168.1.22/24 dev enp0s31f6 src 192.168.1.156 uid 1000 > ``` > > with the current behavior, it looks as if the mask is ignored. > > > Also, the "cache" source isn't great, it would be nice to get the actual > source of the route (in this case, directly-connected or kernel or something). > > Should I open a new bug (possibly with the linux package) or is this okay? > > Thank you for your help > > -- > Clément 'wxcafé' Hertling > > > February 13, 2019 2:56 PM, "Luca Boccassi" <bl...@debian.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2019-02-12 at 17:15 +0000, Clément Hertling (Wxcafé) wrote: > > > >> Hey, > >> > >> February 11, 2019 6:27 PM, "Luca Boccassi" <bl...@debian.org> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 11:55 -0500, Clément 'wxcafé' Hertling wrote: > >> > >>> Package: iproute2 > >>> Version: 4.20.0-2 > >>> Severity: normal > >>> Tags: ipv6 upstream > >>> > >>> When using `ip route get` with 0.0.0.0 or ::, iproute2 shows > >>> multiple > >>> incorrect behaviors: -- \o/ Clément Hertling G Gandi NOC
