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/
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 12:23:50PM -0800, Dave Zarzycki wrote:
> 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
$ /sbin/ip route append default via 192.168.0.2
> 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?
RFC1122 says having several _default_ routes is okay.
> 2) What is the behavior of the kernel when multiple default routes are
> defined?
The kernel will make dead gateway detection to select the right one for
you.
Regards,
Martin