Bug 74319

Summary:	IPv4 routing scripts different from IPv6 routing
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Linux	Reporter:	Jos Vos <jos>
Component:	initscripts	Assignee:	Bill Nottingham <notting>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Brock Organ <borgan>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	9	CC:	chris.ricker, pekkas, rvokal
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Enhancement
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2003-07-22 10:27:43 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Jos Vos 2002-09-20 12:21:06 UTC

Description of Problem:
The IPv6 scripts (like ifup-ipv6) still seem to use a static-routes-ipv6 file,
while this method is not used anymore for IPv4 scripts.  I think both methods
should be made as compatible as possible.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
6.95-1

Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2002-11-12 06:55:57 UTC

Yeah, this really should be going through the same interface.

Comment 2 Pekka Savola 2002-11-12 07:47:05 UTC

I believe IPv6 part will be moving towards a similar route6-<interface> as well.

Comment 3 Pekka Savola 2002-11-12 08:13:21 UTC

Hmm, it appears there are two formats, route-<interface> and <interface>.route
for IPv4.  Should both be supported, I guess route-<interface> is primary until
the Red Hat config tools support IPv6?

Comment 4 Jos Vos 2002-11-12 08:48:58 UTC

AFAIK (although I've not looked at the current CVS version), route-<if> is for
manually adding routes and <if>.route is generated by the RH config tools, so
both should probably be supported.

Comment 5 Bill Nottingham 2002-11-12 16:25:33 UTC

Correct; if redhat-config-network were to get IPv6 support, it would write to
<if>.route.

Comment 6 Pekka Savola 2003-07-22 10:27:43 UTC

Note that RHL9 supports "route6-<device>" -type static routes.
As the configuration tools don't support IPv6 at the moment, I believe the other
format is not needed, and closing the bug as CURRENTRELEASE.