Re: IP4Config and routes

[Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>]

On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 16:33 +0000, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 17:22 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > The default route is controlled internally by NM; it should never be
> > part of the connection settings.  Does your multicast routing need to be
> > different than the default route?
> 
> There is no default route created for link-local connections. And if
> there were, I suspect this isn't always what you want, e.g. see
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/avahi/+bug/99489
> 
> However, if the default route was created, I'd be happy and our bug
> would go away. There would be no need to create a multicast route. (I
> was just taking that approach as thats what happens when Sugar/NM-0.6
> creates a simple mesh connection on XO-1 -- there is no default route,
> but there is a multicast route)
> 
> You can reproduce this easily - just use nm-applet to create a
> link-local adhoc wireless connection, run "route -n", and observe a lack
> of default route.
> 
> I've found the piece of code that causes the routes property to be
> ignored for link-local connections, it's in
> real_act_stage4_get_ip4_config()
> 
> We either need to rework that code to allow certain types of routes, or
> get that default route created like you say. What do you think?

What would you expect the routing table to look like in your case?  I
suppose we could do a default route for link-local.  Not sure if that
will confuse apps that expect a default route to mean an internet
connection though.

Dan