From: Al Boldi <a1426z@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 07:49:48 +0300 > David Miller wrote: > > From: Yanping Du <ypdu2001@xxxxxxxxx> > > > We got complaints on this Linux behavior, since > > > customers feel it confusing, and don't want to see > > > ICMP replies for an eth ifc if it's down. > > > > We're not replying to the "eth interface" we're replying > > to the IP address which is still assosciated with this host > > even though the interface it is assigned to is down. > > Down implies a temporary inactivation. The interface is going down, the address hasn't been removed, they are seperate and distinct operations. If you remove the address, we'll stop responding to it. > You are effectively disabling functionality by implementing the host > based model on top of the interface. "/sbin/ip addr del xxx" works perfectly fine. And it's not "on top of", it's "in conjunction with". Look, the default is not changing, that's what existing Linux systems do and have done for more than 10 years, and therefore we'll break things everywhere if we change. You can effectively get the interface based addressing model if you want by configuring things correctly, it just isn't the default. These threads are such a waste of effort and time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
