3 messages, 2 authors, 2016-02-23 · open the first message on its own page
From: Marcus Furlong <hidden>
Date: 2016-02-19 09:12:24
Hi, Just wondering if the following command should work: # ip route add 192.168.27.27/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.27.27 RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument However, this command works: # ip route add 192.168.27.0/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.27.27 192.168.27.0/24 and 192.168.27.27/24 describe the same subnet? Regards, Marcus. -- Marcus Furlong
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Date: 2016-02-21 20:05:16
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:12:04 +1100 Marcus Furlong [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi, Just wondering if the following command should work: # ip route add 192.168.27.27/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.27.27 RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument However, this command works: # ip route add 192.168.27.0/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.27.27 192.168.27.0/24 and 192.168.27.27/24 describe the same subnet? Regards, Marcus.
It is the kernel complaining, not ip command. The kernel will not accept 192.168.27.27/24 as route since it is a full network address, not an network prefix.
From: Marcus Furlong <hidden>
Date: 2016-02-23 00:19:35
On 22 February 2016 at 07:05, Stephen Hemminger [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:12:04 +1100 Marcus Furlong [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Hi, Just wondering if the following command should work: # ip route add 192.168.27.27/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.27.27 RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument However, this command works: # ip route add 192.168.27.0/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.27.27 192.168.27.0/24 and 192.168.27.27/24 describe the same subnet?It is the kernel complaining, not ip command. The kernel will not accept 192.168.27.27/24 as route since it is a full network address, not an network prefix.
Would it be a bad idea for the ip command to validate the data, and only submit the network bits to the kernel? Regards, Marcus. -- Marcus Furlong