Bug 74319 – IPv4 routing scripts different from IPv6 routing

Bug 74319 - IPv4 routing scripts different from IPv6 routing

Summary:	IPv4 routing scripts different from IPv6 routing

Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Linux
Classification:	Retired
Component:	initscripts (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	9
Hardware:	All Linux

Priority	medium Severity medium
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Bill Nottingham
QA Contact:	Brock Organ
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:	FutureFeature

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2002-09-20 08:21 EDT by Jos Vos
Modified:	2014-03-16 22:31 EDT (History)
CC List:	3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2003-07-22 06:27:43 EDT
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description Jos Vos 2002-09-20 08:21:06 EDT

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 01:55:57 EST

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

Comment 2 Pekka Savola 2002-11-12 02:47:05 EST

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

Comment 3 Pekka Savola 2002-11-12 03:13:21 EST

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 03:48:58 EST

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 11:25:33 EST

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

Comment 6 Pekka Savola 2003-07-22 06:27:43 EDT

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.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.