From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 1 08:50:34 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A38A435; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:50:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from s.khanchi@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wg0-x229.google.com (mail-wg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::229]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1CF219CA; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 08:50:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id y10so3361829wgg.2 for ; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 01:50:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=8g8zeKoFY5XJ+v5FqR3EnLUs65zvcBUp24hsjXwRf2U=; b=xfFK0WWc3Wkd6UY1dxbSYzFmWu4czRBr/yH2Gn3TwK3GfeWY7Br0ztlARfk+1muiKV NG722uHhVvp4zDSV7jXMfV53KF4RIywz3+5J0PTuBDrfIvv/frOHDbQVhTQL3kOL9c07 msLy1a34eyW2DA9bJakNoNUlsvIXjdmQCS6pLiTLBoZEXyH2Y1y0XBphYKpriLtErn1o es/EM/euXNcE5CXXvx5l6/DL+KupYliPKxLIfs4vAU8AndwizkzL7FwJg8Kd4ditrnhp IN2KRF7KItaAIA2qOSdHkQfXKVg8asoyt6yrDkcg5BAYxnubc80Tf5NqDF9yY7vesqoU KDXw== X-Received: by 10.194.8.163 with SMTP id s3mr19414079wja.41.1372668632385; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 01:50:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: s.khanchi@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.22.195 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 01:50:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: h bagade Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 13:20:12 +0430 X-Google-Sender-Auth: p1vIyLxxYevqHpPSgrw3aZnN9Is Message-ID: Subject: Re: probable side effects of deleting interfaces ip addresses(loopback ones) from routing table ! To: Alan Somers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 08:50:34 -0000 Thanks Alan for your helpful reply. As in my test cable was always connected, I didn't have any problem pinging my own interface ip. I think it's better to keep interface loopback ip rather than deleting them to avoid the problem you mentioned besides performance reduction. On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Alan Somers wrote: > The network route uses your real interface, eg igb0. But the > interface IP's route is bound to lo0. So if you delete your interface > route, any packets sent to the interface IP will actually go out the > real interface. In an experiment, my ping times suggest that those > packets are actually going out to the switch and coming back. So if > you delete your interface route, you will have reduced performance > when talking to your interface address, and you'll also be unable to > talk to your own interface address if your ethernet cable gets pulled > out. I wouldn't do it if I were you. > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:35 PM, h bagade wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:25 PM, h bagade wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I've deleted the interface ip address from routing table and only keep > the > >> network address. Nothing is behaving unusual afterwards. I think this > >> loopback ip address is added for better performance. My question is > would I > >> get in to trouble by deleting these ip addresses from routing table or > >> it's, as I think, just a matter of performance? > >> > >> Thanks in advance > >> > > > > I've done further tests after deleting loopback ip addresses and my > system > > works correctly without any side effects! Is that really OK with deleting > > these ip addresses? > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >