Syntax for show route and primary route (*)?

[Kenth Eriksson]

On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 15:00 +0200, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:40:42PM +0000, Kenth Eriksson wrote:
> > > But i do not understand the cases below, where there is no other route
> > > for that network and the only route does not have asterisk.
> > 
> > Simplest of use case, its a default route from the kernel. But still no
> > asterisk. Below is a gdb trace in function rt_show_rte
> > 
> > gdb) print ia
> > $1 = (byte *) 0xffc6c3ab "0.0.0.0/0"
> > (gdb) print e
> > $2 = (rte *) 0x56939d14
> > (gdb) print e->net->routes
> > $3 = (struct rte *) 0x56939c54
> > (gdb) print e->next
> > $4 = (struct rte *) 0x0
> > 
> > Obviously e->net->routes is not equal to e, thus no asterisk.
> 
> Well, i do not understand why the text output below consists of only one
> route, while you have 0x56939d14 and 0x56939c54. Is the text output edited?

No. But I filtered on 0.0.0.0/0, and there is only one such route
entry.

> 
> > > > consider the following:
> > > > 
> > > > bird> show route 0.0.0.0/0
> > > > Table master4:
> > > > 0.0.0.0/0            unicast [kernel1 2019-10-22] (215)
> > > >       via 10.210.137.1 on eth1
> 
> --
> Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo
> 
> Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago at crfreenet.org)
> OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net)
> "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."