Using /sbin/route, I can add multiple default routes like so: /sbin/route add -net default gw 192.168.0.1 /sbin/route add -net default gw 192.168.0.2 But I cannot do the same with /sbin/ip: /sbin/ip route add default via 192.168.0.1 /sbin/ip route add default via 192.168.0.2 RTNETLINK answers: File exists Given that /sbin/ip is the more powerful and modern tool, I'm lead to believe that /sbin/route might be leaving the in kernel routing table in a weird state. My two simple questions are as follows: 1) Which tool is more correct? 2) What is the behavior of the kernel when multiple default routes are defined? Thanks, davez -- Dave Zarzycki http://zarzycki.org/~dave/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
- Re: In kernel routing table vs. /sbin/ip vs. /sbin/routeMartin Schewe <m _at_ xsms.de>
- Prev by Date: Re: i686 SMP systems with more then 12 GB ram with 2.4.x kernel ?
- Next by Date: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable
- Previous by thread: Re: Serial Driver Name Question (kernels 2.4.x)
- Next by thread: Re: In kernel routing table vs. /sbin/ip vs. /sbin/route
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]