From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Jones Subject: Re: Weak host model vs .interface down Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:13:42 -0700 Message-ID: <4C126EC6.9000506@hp.com> References: <4C126514.30905@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Joakim Tjernlund Return-path: Received: from g1t0027.austin.hp.com ([15.216.28.34]:29569 "EHLO g1t0027.austin.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755495Ab0FKRNo (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:13:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > The weak model doesn't go into such detail, it is assumption/impl. detail > to assume that the ip address still is part of the system even when the interface > is down. One could just as well define interface down as temporarly removing > the IP address from the system too. This makes make much more sense to me and > if you always want the system to answer on a IP adress you make it an IP alias. > > Since the current behaviour is a problem to me and routers in general, can > we change this? What is the current usage model which needs it to stay as is? Router != end-system so I wouldn't think the weak or strong end-system model would apply to a router. I think Stephen already posted a patch to allow that for when one's box was a router rather than an end-system. rick jones It's a router! No, it's an end-system! ... http://snltranscripts.jt.org/75/75ishimmer.phtml