From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Hutchings Subject: Re: Deleting an alias causes rest to get deleted Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 02:12:17 +0100 Message-ID: <1341277937.2590.25.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com> References: <4FF1FC74.8080401@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: To: Volkan =?UTF-8?Q?Yaz=C4=B1c=C4=B1?= Return-path: Received: from webmail.solarflare.com ([12.187.104.25]:27330 "EHLO ocex02.SolarFlarecom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932793Ab2GCBMU (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2012 21:12:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FF1FC74.8080401@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2012-07-02 at 22:54 +0300, Volkan Yaz=C4=B1c=C4=B1 wrote: > Hi! >=20 > I observe an IP aliasing anomaly that occurs when I try to delete an = IP=20 > alias from an interface. That is, when I delete the first address in = a=20 > set of IP aliased addresses assigned according to a particular subnet= ,=20 > rest of the aliases get deleted as well. Check out the below snippet. [...] > As a side note, when I first asked this question to Stephen Hemminger= =20 > (he forwarded me to this mailing list) he also told me that "/In Linu= x=20 > the interface aliases are really a legacy from the BSD style addressi= ng,=20 > and don't act the same. It is not common practice to use them./" Is t= hat=20 > really the case? [...] If you didn't give him the full details shown above, it's possible he thought you meant alias interfaces such as 'eth0:0'. Ben. --=20 Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job. They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.