Re: [PATCH] Re: IP4Config and routes

[Jerry Vonau <jvonau shaw ca>]

On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 14:08 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:

> Patch looks good; lets push it into master, NM_0_8_1, and
> NETWORKMANAGER_0_7 branches.  And something else I found today, the
> Fedora network scripts add a 169.254 route by default for IPv4
> connections even if they aren't LL-only.  Not sure why or if that's
> something we want to or why it was added to the Fedora initscripts in
> the first place, but might be worth finding out.

Funny I asked the same thing awhile ago:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455186

On a different note, could your review the concept of creating multi-hop
gateways that I filed at:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=171763

Think there might be some interest in having multiple gateways active
with NM, is there? If so, would the above ifcfg layout be OK once the
rh-plugin has the support? Sorry, I didn't take that idea farther then,
too many packages to patch(NM being one of them), and I don't have the
connections to get all the packages that touch the main routing table
patched. On a side note, shorewall has been able to support multiple
gateways for a while, with two distinct ways of configuring the routing
tables, one using the "main" and the other using the "default" routing
tables for the gateways, note the USE_DEFAULT_RT part, have a look at: 
http://www.shorewall.net/MultiISP.html

What's your take on the use of the routing tables?

just some thoughts,

Jerry