when entering a host-route with netmask 255.255.255.255 route claims somthing like "netmask 00000000" not allowed for host-route! adding the host without specifying the netmask works pretty well, but I want to use linuxconf to do this kinda stuff and "linuxconf --hint routing eth1" ouputs something like "add -host myhost gw mygate netmask 255.255.255.255".
I forgot, it's the Intel version
Can you send some more details of your routing table. I am unable to replicate the problem in the test lab.
Michael, have you ever seen anything like this? If not, we haven't seen any reponses from this individual in months, and we should close the bug.
OOPS ..... I'm awefully sorry, somehow your mail from 01/18/99 must have been dropped at my side! This was the configuration when I postet the bug. As you can see, I (unfortunately only) have three official addresses and so I had to use a private one for the second interface on host B. The machine the problem occured was host B. +-----------------+ +----------------------------------+ +-----------------+ | A | | B | | C | | 193.174. 2. 12 | | 193.174. 2. 8 10. 10. 10. 1 | | 193.174. 2. 13 | | 255.255.255.??? | | 255.255.255.??? 255.255.255.??? | | 255.255.255.??? | +-----------------+ +----------------------------------+ +-----------------+ | | | | + ------------------------+ +-----------------------+ At the moment, I do not remember the netmask as I'm currently only running A and B and have no routing added for C. The routing and interface configuration was done using linuxconf. I've added an explicit host route to host C. The output from linuxconf for the routing to C contained something like "-host XXXXXX netmask 255.255.255.255" which was reject by "route". I'll try to figure out the old routing table and interface configuration tomorrow if you want me to! What I did to solve the problem at my side was to hack the code of "route" to ignore the netmask for a explicit host routing. Anyhow, I'm not shure if hacking code the way I did was a good thing to do, but at least it solved my problem. Anything was running quite well and so I forgot about the bug! ( ... hmmmmm, I think I remember ping complaining about having two interfaces for the route to C but it still worked!)
+-----------------+ | A | | 193.174. 2. 12 |----+ | 255.255.255.??? | | +-----------------+ | | | +-----------------+ | | C | | | 193.174. 2. 8 |----+ | 255.255.255.??? | | | | 10. 10. 10. 1 |----+ | 255.255.255.??? | | +-----------------+ | | | +-----------------+ | | C | | | 193.174. 2. 13 |----+ | 255.255.255.??? | +-----------------+
I've marked this bug as a duplicate of bug 1528, which says that it is about the 2.2 kernel, but is really about a certain rev of route. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1528 ***