Re: IP4Config and routes

On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 11:59 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> Yes, it's correct in these cases because for shared, NM is handling the
> network and there's no routing out of it since the network is NAT-ed to
> the main connection.  In link-local it's not relevant since the
> link-local is by definition /not routable/...

But just because there is no upstream router doesn't mean that access to
the routing table should be excluded. The user may want to add a default
route out on that interface. Or, in our case, we want to pass all
multicast traffic to the interface.

> I'm more inclined to think that the bits aren't getting passed by to NM
> correctly; are you sure you're passing the item with a dbus signature of
> 'aau'?  The code that actually unpacks the routes property is
> nm_utils_ip4_routes_from_gvalue() in nm-utils.c.  Trace into
> nm-setting-ip4-config.c's set_property() call and see if the PROP_ROUTES
> case is run.

set_property() was never called but I figured it out: I have to use
dbus.Array() in Python.

I'm now using:

	ip4_config['routes'] = dbus.Array([(224,4,0,0)], signature='au')

set_property() is now being called for routes, but the routing table is
not being modified. I'll continue investigating tomorrow.

Thanks for your help, as always!

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]