[Cialug] Routes? Interfaces?

[Nathan C. Smith]

My educated guess is so that everything remains supremely flexible.  There are probably distributions with packages that will take care of everything for you if that is what you want.  

For example, you may load TCP/IP in the kernel and then set up a Bluetooth interface.  You may only want to connect to another Bluetooth device using TCP/IP and not assigning a route - because you don't need one.

I would be a lot harder to do something very specific like this if the route was created automatically or if I was unable to use TCP/IP with my Bluetooth interface.  (I'm not saying you can - I don't really know). 

I use AoE (ATA over Ethernet) and it just uses Ethernet packets over the interfaces.  TCP/IP and routes are not necessary.

Maybe somebody else will have more specific cases.

-Nate

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cialug-bounces at cialug.org 
> [mailto:cialug-bounces at cialug.org] On Behalf Of Todd Walton
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 9:32 AM
> To: Central Iowa Linux Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Cialug] Routes? Interfaces?
> 
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Nathan C. Smith 
> <nathan.smith at ipmvs.com> wrote:
> > OSI Layers, interface is comprised of lower layers, route 
> is at a higher layer.  In the Ethernet world, you can do
> > a lot with an interface before TCP/IP and routing gets involved.
> 
> I see.  I was thinking a little more Linux specific, though.  When
> adminning a Linux machine, why is there a kernel routing table?  Why
> doesn't setting up an interface create an accompanying route and be
> done with it?
> 
> -todd
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>