-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello! I have a problem with a duplicate route entry, when using a pre-installed route and automatic take-over by the "heartbeat" daemon, which adds an address and the kernel adds an route automatically. Maybe anyone has an explanation...> ip addr1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1514 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 inet 10.10.20.100/32 scope global eth0> ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 - -- Now I add a route for my ha net:> ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 > ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 scope link default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 - -- The ''heartbeat'' will add an address on switch-over:> ip addr add 10.100.0.1/24 brd 10.100.0.255 dev eth0ip addr 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1514 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 inet 10.10.20.100/32 scope global eth0 inet 10.100.0.1/24 brd 10.100.0.255 scope global eth0> ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.100.0.1 default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 My question is: Why did the kernel add a duplicate routing entry, shouldn''t it notice the existance and avoid this?? Is this a bug of the kernel? Regards Sven Anders - -- Sven Anders <anders@anduras.de> () Ascii Ribbon Campaign /\ Support plain text e-mail ANDURAS service solutions AG Innstraße 71 - 94036 Passau - Germany Web: www.anduras.de - Tel: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-0 - Fax: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-55 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEB0vK5lKZ7Feg4EcRAm9JAJ98WdYNLdYD675zXgxeWgDR67cRZQCgp/il 1k0Rv3YVrMUcynZtOUVnATQ=LJ/1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Sven Anders
2006-Mar-10 18:40 UTC
Problem with duplicate route entry (2. TRY) / Route on interface that is down
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello! * I modified this a little bit and added some command to make it clearer. * I have a problem with a duplicate route entry, when using a pre-installed route and automatic take-over by the "heartbeat" daemon, which adds an address and the kernel adds an route automatically. Maybe anyone has an explanation...> ip addr1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1514 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 inet 10.10.20.100/32 scope global eth0> ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 - -- Now I add a route for my ha net:> ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link > ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 - -- The ''heartbeat'' will add an address on switch-over:> ip addr add 10.100.0.1/24 brd 10.100.0.255 dev eth0ip addr 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1514 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 inet 10.10.20.100/32 scope global eth0 inet 10.100.0.1/24 brd 10.100.0.255 scope global eth0> ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.100.0.1 default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 My question is: Why did the kernel add a duplicate routing entry, shouldn''t it notice the existance and avoid this?? Is this a bug of the kernel? | "Radoslaw Horodniczy" answered: | | This is not a bug, as you see there are 2 different routes Ok, then try this:> ip route del 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link > ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.100.0.1 default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 Now I removed my manually set route. It succeeds. If I then try to readd it, it fails. But why?> ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope linkRTNETLINK answers: File exists I thought they are different!?! Is here any difference I did not see? If they are not different, why does the kernel not recognize it (see above) and avoid the duplicate entry? - -------- Another question: Why can''t I set a route on an interface that is down? I can set an address, so why not a route? I there a reason for that? Example:> ip link set down dev eth0 > ip addr add 10.100.0.1/24 dev eth0 > ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope linkRTNETLINK answers: Network is down - -------- PS: I''m running Linux 2.6.15.1 Regards Sven Anders - -- Sven Anders <anders@anduras.de> () Ascii Ribbon Campaign /\ Support plain text e-mail ANDURAS service solutions AG Innstraße 71 - 94036 Passau - Germany Web: www.anduras.de - Tel: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-0 - Fax: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-55 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEEcg15lKZ7Feg4EcRAlyqAKCQUX9KR2TwOVMwQxKc6nmUrIWMGwCgplEP 5VBAyUFx9g03rzMYMbgb8zs=k9ps -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Sven Anders
2006-Mar-13 08:10 UTC
Problem with duplicate route entry (2. TRY) / Route on interface that is down
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello! * I modified this a little bit and added some command to make it clearer. * I have a problem with a duplicate route entry, when using a pre-installed route and automatic take-over by the "heartbeat" daemon, which adds an address and the kernel adds an route automatically. Maybe anyone has an explanation...> ip addr1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1514 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 inet 10.10.20.100/32 scope global eth0> ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 - -- Now I add a route for my ha net:> ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link > ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 - -- The ''heartbeat'' will add an address on switch-over:> ip addr add 10.100.0.1/24 brd 10.100.0.255 dev eth0ip addr 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1514 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 inet 10.10.20.100/32 scope global eth0 inet 10.100.0.1/24 brd 10.100.0.255 scope global eth0> ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.100.0.1 default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 My question is: Why did the kernel add a duplicate routing entry, shouldn''t it notice the existance and avoid this?? Is this a bug of the kernel? | "Radoslaw Horodniczy" answered: | | This is not a bug, as you see there are 2 different routes Ok, then try this:> ip route del 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link > ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.100.0.1 default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 Now I removed my manually set route. It succeeds. If I then try to readd it, it fails. But why?> ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope linkRTNETLINK answers: File exists I thought they are different!?! Is here any difference I did not see? If they are not different, why does the kernel not recognize it (see above) and avoid the duplicate entry? - -------- Another question: Why can''t I set a route on an interface that is down? I can set an address, so why not a route? I there a reason for that? Example:> ip link set down dev eth0 > ip addr add 10.100.0.1/24 dev eth0 > ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope linkRTNETLINK answers: Network is down - -------- PS: I''m running Linux 2.6.15.1 Regards Sven Anders - -- Sven Anders <anders@anduras.de> () Ascii Ribbon Campaign /\ Support plain text e-mail ANDURAS service solutions AG Innstraße 71 - 94036 Passau - Germany Web: www.anduras.de - Tel: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-0 - Fax: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-55 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEFSjr5lKZ7Feg4EcRAiiWAJ9TBgoFJrK97rWKzDozwyspfPJzMACghzoJ rtx0kobKi0Tgbnz9LfCaQOM=pNVu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Sven Anders
2006-Mar-13 19:00 UTC
Problem with duplicate route entry (2. TRY) / Route on interface that is down
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 (Sorry, if you got this mail twice, but the LARTC maillist server had problems). Hello! ** I modified this a little bit and added some command to make it clearer. ** I have a problem with a duplicate route entry, when using a pre-installed route and automatic take-over by the "heartbeat" daemon, which adds an address and the kernel adds an route automatically. Maybe anyone has an explanation...> ip addr1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1514 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 inet 10.10.20.100/32 scope global eth0> ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 - -- Now I add a route for my ha net:> ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link > ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 - -- The ''heartbeat'' will add an address on switch-over:> ip addr add 10.100.0.1/24 brd 10.100.0.255 dev eth0ip addr 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1514 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 inet 10.10.20.100/32 scope global eth0 inet 10.100.0.1/24 brd 10.100.0.255 scope global eth0> ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.100.0.1 default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 My question is: Why did the kernel add a duplicate routing entry, shouldn''t it notice the existance and avoid this?? Is this a bug of the kernel? | "Radoslaw Horodniczy" answered: | | This is not a bug, as you see there are 2 different routes Ok, then try this:> ip route del 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link > ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.100.0.1 default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 Now I removed my manually set route. It succeeds. If I then try to readd it, it fails. But why?> ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope linkRTNETLINK answers: File exists I thought they are different!?! Is here any difference I did not see? If they are not different, why does the kernel not recognize it (see above) and avoid the duplicate entry? - -------- Another question: Why can''t I set a route on an interface that is down? I can set an address, so why not a route? I there a reason for that? Example:> ip link set down dev eth0 > ip addr add 10.100.0.1/24 dev eth0 > ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope linkRTNETLINK answers: Network is down - -------- PS: I''m running Linux 2.6.15.1 Regards Sven Anders - -- Sven Anders <anders@anduras.de> () Ascii Ribbon Campaign /\ Support plain text e-mail ANDURAS service solutions AG Innstraße 71 - 94036 Passau - Germany Web: www.anduras.de - Tel: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-0 - Fax: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-55 Mit freundlichen Grüßen Sven Anders -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEFcFi5lKZ7Feg4EcRAsbNAKCTTnDmHACtK0jRknO+/DJZ3QotcQCfa6wa +XKjJP1EFDMSLCsN4PyNHr0=ox5B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello! I have a problem with a duplicate route entry, when using a pre-installed route and automatic take-over by the "heartbeat" daemon, which adds an address and the kernel adds an route automatically. PLEASE!!! Can anybody try this yourself and give me an explanation! I think this a kernel bug...> ip addr1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1514 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 inet 10.10.20.100/32 scope global eth0> ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 - -- Now I add a route for my ha net:> ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link > ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 - -- The ''heartbeat'' will add an address on switch-over:> ip addr add 10.100.0.1/24 brd 10.100.0.255 dev eth0ip addr 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1514 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 inet 10.10.20.100/32 scope global eth0 inet 10.100.0.1/24 brd 10.100.0.255 scope global eth0> ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.100.0.1 default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 My question is: Why did the kernel add a duplicate routing entry, shouldn''t it notice the existance and avoid this?? Is this a bug of the kernel? | "Radoslaw Horodniczy" answered: | | This is not a bug, as you see there are 2 different routes Ok, then try this:> ip route del 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link > ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.100.0.1 default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 Now I removed my manually set route. It succeeds. If I then try to readd it, it fails. But why?> ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope linkRTNETLINK answers: File exists I thought they are different!?! Is here any difference I did not see? If they are not different, why does the kernel not recognize it (see above) and avoid the duplicate entry? - -------- Another question: Why can''t I set a route on an interface that is down? I can set an address, so why not a route? I there a reason for that? As far as I understand routing should be handled independed from the addresses... Example:> ip link set down dev eth0 > ip addr add 10.100.0.1/24 dev eth0 > ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope linkRTNETLINK answers: Network is down - -------- PS: I''m running Linux 2.6.15.1 Regards Sven Anders - -- Sven Anders <anders@anduras.de> () Ascii Ribbon Campaign /\ Support plain text e-mail ANDURAS service solutions AG Innstraße 71 - 94036 Passau - Germany Web: www.anduras.de - Tel: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-0 - Fax: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-55 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEG0Eh5lKZ7Feg4EcRAhsnAKCWwmTGAw38PItPXsiXb3ZTu5nVqwCeOU3f 0VU5q3I3vN5K4lBoUKmgZRg=tCGm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
Hello! I have a problem with a duplicate route entry, when using a pre-installed route and automatic take-over by the "heartbeat" daemon, which adds an address and the kernel adds an route automatically. PLEASE!!! Can anybody try this yourself and give me an explanation! I think this a kernel bug...> ip addr1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1514 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 inet 10.10.20.100/32 scope global eth0> ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 -- Now I add a route for my ha net:> ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link > ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 -- The ''heartbeat'' will add an address on switch-over:> ip addr add 10.100.0.1/24 brd 10.100.0.255 dev eth0ip addr 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1514 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000 inet 10.10.20.100/32 scope global eth0 inet 10.100.0.1/24 brd 10.100.0.255 scope global eth0> ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.100.0.1 default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 My question is: Why did the kernel add a duplicate routing entry, shouldn''t it notice the existance and avoid this?? Is this a bug of the kernel? | "Radoslaw Horodniczy" answered: | | This is not a bug, as you see there are 2 different routes Ok, then try this:> ip route del 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link > ip route127.0.0.0 dev lo scope link 10.10.20.0/24 dev eth0 scope link 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.100.0.1 default via 10.10.20.1 dev eth0 Now I removed my manually set route. It succeeds. If I then try to readd it, it fails. But why?> ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope linkRTNETLINK answers: File exists I thought they are different!?! Is here any difference I did not see? If they are not different, why does the kernel not recognize it (see above) and avoid the duplicate entry? -------- Another question: Why can''t I set a route on an interface that is down? I can set an address, so why not a route? I there a reason for that? As far as I understand routing should be handled independed from the addresses... Example:> ip link set down dev eth0 > ip addr add 10.100.0.1/24 dev eth0 > ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope linkRTNETLINK answers: Network is down -------- PS: I''m running Linux 2.6.15.1 PPS: Why is ANYBODY still ignoring this e-mail for over 3 weeks????? Regards Sven Anders -- Sven Anders <anders@anduras.de> () Ascii Ribbon Campaign /\ Support plain text e-mail ANDURAS service solutions AG Innstraße 71 - 94036 Passau - Germany Web: www.anduras.de - Tel: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-0 - Fax: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-55 _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:56:52AM +0200, Sven Anders wrote: <snipped a lot>> > ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link > RTNETLINK answers: File existss/add/append/> I thought they are different!?! > Is here any difference I did not see? > If they are not different, why does the kernel not recognize it > (see above) and avoid the duplicate entry?add prevents duplicates, append just adds.> Another question: > > Why can''t I set a route on an interface that is down?That''s by some design. Use patches from linuxvirtualserver.org if you want them to exist.> I can set an address, so why not a route?You don''t set an address... The address exists only at the moment the interface comes up. Before that you don''t have the address (active in your ip stack)> I there a reason for that? > As far as I understand routing should be handled independed from > the addresses...Jups> Example: > > ip link set down dev eth0 > > ip addr add 10.100.0.1/24 dev eth0 > > ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link > RTNETLINK answers: Network is downThe ip is not there yet. ip link set up dev eth0 # Activate interfaces ip a add 127.0.0.1/32 dev eth0 # Bind interface to ipv4 stack ip a add 10.100.0.1/32 dev lo # We need a public ip on our ip stack # Add the route to the interface with sane src ip. ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 src 10.100.0.1> PPS: Why is ANYBODY still ignoring this e-mail for over 3 weeks?????People are busy :-)
First of all: Thanks for the answer!!!! Ard van Breemen schrieb:> On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 11:56:52AM +0200, Sven Anders wrote: > <snipped a lot> >>> ip route add 10.100.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link >> RTNETLINK answers: File exists > > s/add/append/ > >> I thought they are different!?! >> Is here any difference I did not see? >> If they are not different, why does the kernel not recognize it >> (see above) and avoid the duplicate entry? > > add prevents duplicates, append just adds.Ok, this would prevent the error, but it does not explain the error itself. Did you tried it yourself? All I want to know is, if I did a mistake. If so, please explain my error...>> Another question: >> >> Why can''t I set a route on an interface that is down? > > That''s by some design. Use patches from linuxvirtualserver.org if > you want them to exist.Ok, I will try it... But what''s the reason for this design? I think, this test could be done in user-space and did not have to be in the kernel.> >> PPS: Why is ANYBODY still ignoring this e-mail for over 3 weeks????? > > People are busy :-)Ok, I understand this, but for over three weeks with so many people on this mailing list?? :-) Regards Sven -- Sven Anders <anders@anduras.de> () Ascii Ribbon Campaign /\ Support plain text e-mail ANDURAS service solutions AG Innstra?e 71 - 94036 Passau - Germany Web: www.anduras.de - Tel: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-0 - Fax: +49 (0)851-4 90 50-55 _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc