> >Because the ifconfig says that the interface exists on that network
> >with that address
>
> ..and subnet mask!
Huh? Don't get excited - network is defined by address and mask :-).
> >. It does not say that packets may be routed out
> >through that interface.
>
> i don't see this as being relevant. there won't be anything
> listening on the interface at this point.
Read it again. *Out* not *in*. Listening is usually done globally,
sometimes bound to specific *addresses*, rarely bound to specific
*interfaces*. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
> > That is the way most
> >network engineers I know expect things to be.
>
> if you say so. personally, i think it's the right way to do it.
> cisco IOS adds the implicit route, btw.
IOS is not a general purpose OS though. Your argument appears to
be that your assumptions are correct because you think it's
right - even though others do not and can tell you why. Can we
get back to a discussion of why the current behaviour is inherently
"right" or not?
Mike
--
A train stops at a train station, a bus stops at a bus station.
On my desk I have a work station...
.----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Mike Jagdis | Internet: mailto:mike@roan.co.uk |
| Roan Technology Ltd. | |
| 54A Peach Street, Wokingham | Telephone: +44 118 989 0403 |
| RG40 1XG, ENGLAND | Fax: +44 118 989 1195 |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------'
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/