From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?b?0KXQsNC90LrQuNC9INCa0L7QvdGB0YLQsNC90YLQuNC9?= Subject: Re: Why linux keeps connected routes when link goes down Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:22:12 +0500 Message-ID: <200902191122.13106.homecreate@list.ru> References: <200902190203.41497.homecreate@list.ru> <20090218.155207.139931991.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mx30.mail.ru ([94.100.176.44]:18003 "EHLO mx30.mail.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752193AbZBSGWT (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:22:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20090218.155207.139931991.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > IP addresses are owned by the "host" rather than specific interfaces > under Linux. So just bringing an interface down does not disable > IP addresses configured to that interface. Well. Why routes are not in kernel table when interface is DOWN? And why routes are still alive if interface is UP, but not RUNNING? I think it's right when I can't send anything through interface when there is no link. But now I have no link and a route to some network with the highest metric -- Konstantin E-mail homecreate@list.ru Jabber homecreate@jabber.ru