Denis V. Lunev wrote:
Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Denis V. Lunev wrote:
Daniel Lezcano wrote:
Denis V. Lunev wrote:
I could hardly imagine why sombady needs to assign 0.0.0.0 as an
interface
address or interface destination address. The kernel will behave in a
strage
way in several places if this is possible, as ifa_local != 0 is
considered
as initialized/non-initialized state of the ifa.
AFAICS, we should be able to set at an interface address to 0.0.0.0, in
order to remove an IP address from an interface and keep this one up.
I see two trivial cases:
* remove the ipv4 on an interface but continue to use it through ipv6
* move ipv4 address from the interface to an attached bridge
For this case there is an IOCTL/netlink "remove IP address".
And I forgot to mention the general broadcast.
This is need for the dhcp protocol. If you are not able to set your
interface to 0.0.0.0, you will be not able to send a 255.255.255.255
broadcast message to have your IP address.
OK. Dave, pls disregard this patch. I suspect that others in the set
should not intersect with this one.
To summarize the discussion:
there is the only reason for this assignment: old IOCTL interface does
not have a way to remove IP address except this, though netlink has a
method for it that's why I am a little bit confused :)
This is handled in the __inet_insert_ifa: ifa is just removed there and,
correctly, ifa with 0.0.0.0 address can't exists in the kernel.
Yes, my last statement is false.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
