From owner-freebsd-net Tue Jun 29 9:26: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mh.acorn.co.uk (mh.acorn.co.uk [136.170.131.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50DFA152DA for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 09:25:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kbracey@e-14.com) Received: from kbracey (kbracey [136.170.129.213]) by mh.acorn.co.uk (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id RAA16994 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 1999 17:25:53 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 17:26:06 +0100 From: Kevin Bracey To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Old IP addresses hanging around in routes Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-Organization: Acorn Computers Ltd, Cambridge, United Kingdom X-Mailer: Messenger v1.40f for RISC OS MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Posting-Agent: RISC OS Newsbase 0.61b Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org In message Julian Elischer wrote: > well yes, > > if you delete an interface, why would you keep a route that points > through it? You want to re-evaluate that route next time you try to reach > that destination. These changes are aimed evemtially at making interfaced > dynamic. I may have misunderstood. In the case where you do something like: ifconfig eh0 10.0.4.1 route add default 10.0.0.1 ifconfig eh0 10.0.4.2 your change would remove the default route outright, as I read it. It certainly needs to be reevaluated as to how we actually get to 10.0.0.1 following the reconfiguration of the interface route, but should we remove the default route altogether? -- Kevin Bracey, Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology plc Tel: +44 (0) 1223 725228 645 Newmarket Road Fax: +44 (0) 1223 725328 Cambridge, CB5 8PB, United Kingdom WWW: http://www.acorn.co.uk/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message