Explain, please, why you would want to configure IP on an interface if you
didn't want to "route" out to that local subnet? If you are using another
protocol, then don't configure IP. But, IIRC all other *nix implementations
automatically put in a route to the subnet you are defining when you
ifconfig an interface with an IP address. The references to what router
vendors do should have no bearing on this question. If you want to compare
what others in the industry are doing, take a look at Solaris, HP-UX, AIX,
Tru64 Unix, DG-UX, etc.
>
> > `maybe i don't even want to have a route?' you say. ok.
> why not just
> > simply remove the nic?
>
> Because sometimes you want an interface that doesn't have routes
> through it? Why is this such a difficult concept? That is the
> way the ISDN layer works for instance.
It's a difficult concept because it does not make sense. Why would you want
to configure an IP, again I ask, if you don't want to communicate with that
IP? If you don't want to communicate with that IP, but want it configured
for some reason, then ifconfig down the interface.
"That is the way the ISDN layer works for instance."
Where? In Linux (I honestly don't know). Why does it work that way? Does
it "need" to? Is that the correct implementation? It seems to me that if
ISDN "requires" a special implementation because of specific issues it has,
then it's implementation should be "special." No reason to require the vast
majority of other interface types to change based upon special requirements
of ISDN.
-
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/