From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Christopher Friesen" Subject: Re: address pingable with interface down Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 17:06:11 -0600 Message-ID: <446271E3.9070208@nortel.com> References: <20060510194818.GB4460@junkers.homelinux.net> <20060510.130012.128043400.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jadevree@mtu.edu, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com ([47.129.242.56]:10234 "EHLO zcars04e.nortel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965066AbWEJXGQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 May 2006 19:06:16 -0400 To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20060510.130012.128043400.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David S. Miller wrote: > From: Jon DeVree >>I've noticed in the past that the address owned by an interface is >>still pingable after that interface is brought down. > People bring this up all the time and this behavior is > intentional. > This is becoming a serious FAQ and very tiresome to explain over and > over again. Maybe the fact that so may people ask about or are surprised by it is a sign that it is counter-intuitive and should perhaps be more fully documented? The fact that "ifconfig" or "ip addr" show IP addresses as specifically associated with individual ethernet links may contribute to this problem--it sure makes it look like the IP address is an attribute of the link rather than the host. Chris