Re: Route to network 169.254.0.0

[Jesus Aneiros Sosa <aneiros finf ucf edu cu>]

Thank you Tom. I did the same question at another list and the answer
was: "Whys does it bother you?"

I comment your message below.

-- 
Jesus Aneiros Sosa
GNU/Linux User #190716

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Tom Diehl wrote:

> > variable but I couldn't find any mention to this in RH
> > /usr/share/doc/initscripts-x.xx
>
> Last time I looked that set of documentation is horribly out of date and
> incomplete. The best thing to do is rtfs.

In fact what I do was a grep -n  169.254 * at the network-scripts
directory to find out who was responsable.

> IIRC it is in preparation for supporting zeroconf. I think it was added
> to the initscripts in the RHL 9 days. Personally I find it UGLY and turn
> it off. I think this falls into the category of if you know it is there
> you probably will never need it.

I agree. But I couldn't find any mention from RedHat. It looks like an
idea that was not completely implemented.

> setting "NOZEROCONF=1" will do it. Actually setting NOZEROCONF to anything
> will turn it off.

Yes, I did it with NOZEROCONF=yes but as you say anything that makes the
length of the string different from zero will do the job.

Why did they introduce a new var that it's not mentioned in any place
without checking besides the other variable BOOTPROTO=dhcp?

Best regards, --Jesus.







-- 
Este mensaje ha sido analizado por el servicio de antivirus
de la UCf, mediante MailScanner y  F-prot en busca de virus 
y otros contenidos peligrosos, y se considera que está limpio.
No obstante tome sus propias medidas de seguridad.