Re: IP4Config and routes

[Simon Schampijer <simon schampijer de>]

On 12/18/2009 03:14 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 14:22 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I would expect the subnet route, as NM is creating already:
> 	dest=169.254.0.0
> 	gateway=0.0.0.0
> 	genmask=255.255.0.0
>
> I would also like the routing table to either include a default route:
> 	dest=0.0.0
> 	gateway=0.0.0.0
> 	genmask=0.0.0.0
>
> or a multicast one:
> 	dest=224.0.0.0
> 	gateway=0.0.0.0
> 	genmask=240.0.0.0
>
> The routing table that NM is setting up now is reasonable, in my
> opinion, but there should be some way of customizing the behaviour in
> the settings object.
>
> Daniel

Hi,

what is the status on this one? Was there a conclusion on whether NM 
should set a default route for link local?

Thanks,
   Simon