[c-nsp] Use of "name" parameter on "ip route"

[Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET]

Hi,

	I'd like to hear peoples understandings/impressions/views
on the "name" parameter of the "ip route" command.

	Its a strange question, granted, but it also might be the
solution to the problem I've been asking for help for the last
month or so....

	WHY is the "name" command used on ip route? WHEN is it
proper to use it, and when is it improper? Has anyone gotten
burned USING it or NOT using it?

	It seems that I previously had something like :

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.75.1 10 name ISP_A track 100
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 11 name ISP_B track 200
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.75.1 250 name ISP_A_FB
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 251 name ISP_B_FB

	When the 100 track was down, even though the 200 track
was up, it fell over to the ISP_A_FB which didn't make any
sense.

	As soon as I took the names out on the two tracks,
it appears that when track 100 is down and track 200 is up,
it installs the 11 distanced route, LIKE IT SHOULD!

	SO, I'm wondering if I can take names out all together.
Will doing :

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.75.1 10 track 100
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 11 track 200
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.75.1 250
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 251

	hurt anything? Is a name needed since the 1st and 3rd are
the same, just different distances? And the same for the 2nd and
4th? The router is running like that right now, but I haven't
had track 100 go down to see if it goes to my 200 track or 
as it did before falls over to the 250 distance one.

	If you want to reply privately, thats great too.

			Thanks, Tuc