|To:||Andrea G Forte <andreaf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: primary and secondary ip addresses|
|From:||Henrik Nordstrom <hno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:39:47 +0100 (CET)|
|Cc:||Hasso Tepper <hasso@xxxxxxxxx>, Harald Welte <laforge@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Neil Horman <nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx|
|References:||<41912F7A.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <41C2F6E5.firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <41C30212.firstname.lastname@example.org>|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Andrea G Forte wrote:
This does not help, since if I want to use my secondary IP address instead of my primary, I cannot delete the primary otherwise all of my secondary IPs are lost as well (and since I can only have only one primary IP address).
Why change the primary address? What is wrong with simply changing the route to use the other source IP?
-If I use a secondary IP and try to invalidate the primary (i.e. by removing its routing table entry), it takes about 500ms for the actual change (data packets sent on the secondary IP instead of the primary) to take effect.
I honestly do not understand what harm could do to have more than one primary address, especially on different subnets.
How it works today is that the first IP you add in a subnet becomes a primary, any additional IPs you add in the same subnet becomes secondary. You can have any number of primary IPs with each any number of secondary IPs, the primary IPs just can't be in the same subnet.
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [Coverity] Untrusted user data in kernel, Oliver Neukum|
|Next by Date:||Re: primary and secondary ip addresses, Andrea G Forte|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: primary and secondary ip addresses, Andrea G Forte|
|Next by Thread:||Re: primary and secondary ip addresses, Andrea G Forte|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|