> By assigning an address to the an interface, you just tell the kernel to add
> a local route to this interface. Local routes without interface addresses or
> interface addresses without local routes are semantically incorrect.
So when you set an address on an interface that address is recognised
as belonging to the local machine. That's fine. That's what we
expect from 2.0
> By attaching a network to the interface (i.e, by specifying a non-trivial
> netmask), you tell the kernel to add an outgoing network route and also a
> broadcast route through the interface. Again, attached networks without routes
> or vice versa are semantical nonsense.
So, as soon as the interface has a mask or p-t-p you get a route.
That's not what we expect from 2.0 and leads to confusion. As soon
as you config an interface you can't avoid getting a route entry
you might not have wanted (see my future message for some reasons
and problem), but you can't avoid it without deleting or downing
the interface.
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/