[Glastonbury] routing tables

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 10:43:15PM +0000, Nick Irwin wrote:
> Here's one for all you networking guru's
> 
> In a routing table, should it be the most specific routes first such as:
> 192.168.2.4
> 192.168.2.3
> ....
> 192.174.3.0
> 
> or the other way round?
> 
> Also where do the default gateway and loopback addresses fit in? should they 
> be at the top or the bottom?
> 
> I have found both examples with most specific first and ones with most 
> specific last. I tried to look at my own route table to find it was empty 
> (probably because I am using DHCP, or maybe I was looking at the wrong file)
> 
> Thanks for any help
> 
> -- 
> Nick Irwin
> Term-time E-mail: nirwin at blueyonder.co.uk
> Home E-mail: nirwin at pulbah.plus.com
> 
Are you playing with route ARP and other such good things?

I ask because I think Martin is thinking of /etc/hosts and/or
/etc/network/interfaces rather than kernel routing tables.

I had a feeling you should always set one fallback default route
anyway.

The one that's bloody annoying and sneaks up on you is if you
install some of the tunneling type devices/ethertap/ipv6 devices - 
then suddenly find that _that_ device has the default route and that 
your ethernet connectivity to broadband has vanished utterly :)

Happy holidays / solstice / Channukah / Kwanzaa / Christmas / Saturnalia

Andy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Glastonbury mailing list
> Glastonbury at mailman.lug.org.uk
> http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/glastonbury