Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Denis V. Lunev wrote: >> Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> Denis V. Lunev wrote: >>>> I could hardly imagine why sombady needs to assign 0.0.0.0 as an >>>> interface >>>> address or interface destination address. The kernel will behave in a >>>> strage >>>> way in several places if this is possible, as ifa_local != 0 is >>>> considered >>>> as initialized/non-initialized state of the ifa. >>> AFAICS, we should be able to set at an interface address to 0.0.0.0, in >>> order to remove an IP address from an interface and keep this one up. >>> I see two trivial cases: >>> * remove the ipv4 on an interface but continue to use it through ipv6 >>> * move ipv4 address from the interface to an attached bridge >> >> For this case there is an IOCTL/netlink "remove IP address". > > And I forgot to mention the general broadcast. > This is need for the dhcp protocol. If you are not able to set your > interface to 0.0.0.0, you will be not able to send a 255.255.255.255 > broadcast message to have your IP address. >
OK. Dave, pls disregard this patch. I suspect that others in the set should not intersect with this one. To summarize the discussion: there is the only reason for this assignment: old IOCTL interface does not have a way to remove IP address except this, though netlink has a method for it that's why I am a little bit confused :) This is handled in the __inet_insert_ifa: ifa is just removed there and, correctly, ifa with 0.0.0.0 address can't exists in the kernel. Sorry :) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html