Bug#40346: Reassigning 8 years old still present bug
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 06:10:05AM -0300, Martín Ferrari wrote: reassign 40346 linux-2.6 thanks Hi, this could be strange, but this 5-digits bug is still open. Summary: removing a aliased interface doesn't kill existing connections. I can reproduce it, but it doesn't seem to be net-tools fault, as the interface is correctly removed (ifconfig and ip a l doesn't list it anymore). I'm not even sure if this is a bug or not, but I think it's up to kernel maintainers to decide on that. This is often explained on linux-net in the last time. It is due to linux host (instead of interface) based addressing model. You need to remove the address instead of downing the interface. Removing is not currently supported by ifconfig for ipv4. So it is somewhat a net-tools bug. Gruss Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#40346: Reassigning 8 years old still present bug
Hi again, On 4/6/07, Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can reproduce it, but it doesn't seem to be net-tools fault, as the interface is correctly removed (ifconfig and ip a l doesn't list it anymore). I'm not even sure if this is a bug or not, but I think it's up to kernel maintainers to decide on that. This is often explained on linux-net in the last time. It is due to linux host (instead of interface) based addressing model. You need to remove the address instead of downing the interface. Removing is not currently supported by ifconfig for ipv4. So it is somewhat a net-tools bug. I kept testing this one. And ifconfig does the same as ip addr del: it removes the address! And the connection, even when still exists to the socket layer, cannot transfer anything: incoming packets ignored, outgoing packets not sent (I don't know if they stall in a queue or are discarded), ping ignored, arp unanswered. So, I don't know why you say that this doesn't work for ifconfig. I now think that the bug should be closed for good. -- Martín Ferrari
Bug#40346: Reassigning 8 years old still present bug
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 07:31:51PM -0300, Martín Ferrari wrote: I kept testing this one. And ifconfig does the same as ip addr del: it removes the address! you mean ifconfig eth0 0 down, or how do you remove the ip with ifconfig? Recent Discussion: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-net@vger.kernel.org/msg01235.html Gruss Bernd -- (OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ( .. )[EMAIL PROTECTED],linux.de,debian.org} http://www.eckes.org/ o--o 1024D/E383CD7E [EMAIL PROTECTED] v:+497211603874 f:+49721151516129 (OO) When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#40346: Reassigning 8 years old still present bug
On 4/6/07, Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 07:31:51PM -0300, Martín Ferrari wrote: I kept testing this one. And ifconfig does the same as ip addr del: it removes the address! you mean ifconfig eth0 0 down, or how do you remove the ip with ifconfig? I did ifconfig eth0:0 down and it worked just ok. Recent Discussion: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-net@vger.kernel.org/msg01235.html But I think that there is something different being discussed: pinging a local address in an inactive interface. Or I misread this bug, but I think the problem was remote pinging to a supposedly removed address. And that's what AJ tested back on the day. -- Martín Ferrari
Bug#40346: Reassigning 8 years old still present bug
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 10:31:07PM -0300, Martín Ferrari wrote: But I think that there is something different being discussed: pinging a local address in an inactive interface. Or I misread this bug, but I think the problem was remote pinging to a supposedly removed address. And that's what AJ tested back on the day. Well, maybe it is different, dont know. Hosts react to ip addresses even if the associated interface is down. Thats by definition and might be related to the bug. Gruss Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#40346: Reassigning 8 years old still present bug
On 4/6/07, Bernd Eckenfels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 10:31:07PM -0300, Martín Ferrari wrote: But I think that there is something different being discussed: pinging a local address in an inactive interface. Or I misread this bug, but I think the problem was remote pinging to a supposedly removed address. And that's what AJ tested back on the day. Well, maybe it is different, dont know. Hosts react to ip addresses even if the associated interface is down. Thats by definition and might be related to the bug. Yeah, that's by design. But currently, ifconfig is deleting the address as expected when you down an alias... So, what can be done with this bug? I'd close it as done. -- Martín Ferrari
Bug#40346: Reassigning 8 years old still present bug
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 10:58:22PM -0300, Martín Ferrari wrote: Yeah, that's by design. But currently, ifconfig is deleting the address as expected when you down an alias... So, what can be done with this bug? I'd close it as done. ifconfig is not deleting the address, it is only cleaning the IFF_UP flag from it... I dont think ifconfig allows address deletion. I am not sure if the bug still exists or not. If it exists, it is a kernel problem. However it might not be a bug at all, since it can be related to the host-based address model. Gruss Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
