--On Thursday, March 03, 2005 09:00:09 AM +0900 "YOSHIFUJI Hideaki /
=?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?=" <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <20050302231400.GU31837@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Thu, 3 Mar 2005
> 00:14:00 +0100), Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> says:
>> * jamal <1109801372.1098.228.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2005-03-02 17:09
>> > Is this a user space problem? I think we had something along these
>> > lines fixed recently. Thomas?
>> I didn't fix any of these but it's definitely a userspace problem.
>> One can easly work around this by iterating over all scopes
>> except for link local and provide the scope to flush. We'll have
>> to put additional filters into print_addrinfo() if we want this
>> to be default but I'm not even sure what the official policy should
>> be like. Any standards on this?
> I believe that flush should remove all addresses including link-local.
> So, current behavior is correct.
My pitfall was that I didn't know (but Pekka told me) that "ip -6 flush"
also understand scopes.
So I use the suggestion given by Thomas to run through all scopes of the
addresses and flush dedicated like
ip -6 addr flush dev <device> scope global
ip -6 addr flush dev <device> scope site
BTW: how many scopes are currently defined?
ip help shows me:
SCOPE-ID := [ host | link | global | NUMBER ]
What means NUMBER and why is "site" understood but not in online help?
Dr. Peter Bieringer http://www.bieringer.de/pb/
GPG/PGP Key 0x958F422D mailto: pb at bieringer dot de
Deep Space 6 Co-Founder and Core Member http://www.deepspace6.net/