From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: Deleting an alias causes rest to get deleted Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2012 19:44:29 -0700 Message-ID: <20120702194429.7c865c94@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> References: <4FF1FC74.8080401@gmail.com> <1341277937.2590.25.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Volkan =?UTF-8?B?WWF6xLFjxLE=?= , To: Ben Hutchings Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([76.74.103.46]:50502 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753460Ab2GCCon convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jul 2012 22:44:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1341277937.2590.25.camel@bwh-desktop.uk.solarflarecom.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 02:12:17 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote: > 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 a= n IP=20 > > alias from an interface. That is, when I delete the first address i= n a=20 > > set of IP aliased addresses assigned according to a particular subn= et,=20 > > rest of the aliases get deleted as well. Check out the below snippe= t. > [...] > > As a side note, when I first asked this question to Stephen Hemming= er=20 > > (he forwarded me to this mailing list) he also told me that "/In Li= nux=20 > > the interface aliases are really a legacy from the BSD style addres= sing,=20 > > and don't act the same. It is not common practice to use them./" Is= that=20 > > really the case? > [...] >=20 > If you didn't give him the full details shown above, it's possible he > thought you meant alias interfaces such as 'eth0:0'. Yes, that is what I was assuming by the word 'alias'