On Tuesday 08 of June 2010 23:08:01 Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 13:43 +0200, Jirka Klimes wrote: > > On Saturday 05 of June 2010 04:58:36 Dan Williams wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 09:51 +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote: > > > > On 12/18/2009 03:14 PM, Daniel Drake wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 14:22 -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > > > >> What would you expect the routing table to look like in your case? > > > > >> I suppose we could do a default route for link-local. Not sure > > > > >> if that will confuse apps that expect a default route to mean an > > > > >> internet connection though. > > > > > > > > > > I would expect the subnet route, as NM is creating already: > > > > > dest=169.254.0.0 > > > > > gateway=0.0.0.0 > > > > > genmask=255.255.0.0 > > > > > > > > > > I would also like the routing table to either include a default route: > > > > > dest=0.0.0 > > > > > gateway=0.0.0.0 > > > > > genmask=0.0.0.0 > > > > > > > > > > or a multicast one: > > > > > dest=224.0.0.0 > > > > > gateway=0.0.0.0 > > > > > genmask=240.0.0.0 > > > > > > > > > > The routing table that NM is setting up now is reasonable, in my > > > > > opinion, but there should be some way of customizing the behaviour > > > > > in the settings object. > > > > > > > > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > what is the status on this one? Was there a conclusion on whether NM > > > > should set a default route for link local? > > > > > > Creating a multicast route by default on link-local IPv4 connections > > > seems reasonable. Want to do a patch for that? I'd say just add the > > > desired route in aipd_get_ip4_config() in src/nm-device.c to the > > > returned NMIP4Config object and then lets make sure the code that adds > > > routes works correctly there. > > > > The patch adds a multicast route as suggested by Dan. > > > > destination=224.0.0.0 > > netmask=240.0.0.0 > > > > Daniel, does it work for your case? > > Patch looks good; lets push it into master, NM_0_8_1, and > NETWORKMANAGER_0_7 branches. And something else I found today, the > Fedora network scripts add a 169.254 route by default for IPv4 > connections even if they aren't LL-only. Not sure why or if that's > something we want to or why it was added to the Fedora initscripts in > the first place, but might be worth finding out.
Committed to the three branches. Regarding 169.254.0.0 route, I've searched a bit. It is part of initscripts quite a long time now (from RedHat 9.0). /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-eth: # Add Zeroconf route. if [ -z "${NOZEROCONF}" -a "${ISALIAS}" = "no" -a "${REALDEVICE}" != "lo" ]; then ip route add 169.254.0.0/16 dev ${REALDEVICE} metric $((1000 + $(cat /sys/class/net/${REALDEVICE}/ifindex))) scope link fi http://linux.dbw.org/notes/static-routes.txt - last section. I think that it was added as a response to Windows Automatic Private IP Addressing(APIPA) feature when implementing zeroconf. However, I don't know if Windows adds the route for all connections like initscripts does. I could try to find that. I'm not sure if the route could cause problems, probably not. But having it just for LL-only connection looks cleaner. There was a bug for creating it even for loopback, now corrected:https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=203591#c8 Switching off the zeroconf route: http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/docs/DOC-8628 Jirka _______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list networkmanager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list