Subject: Re: Strange behavior of sl0 & lo0
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Donald J. Maddox <root@rhiannon>
Date: 09/15/1995 16:18:28
>> >~ >% netstat -i
>> Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs Coll
>> sl0 296 <Link> 13906 0 6243 0 0
>> sl0 296 206.25.246 cola61 13906 0 6243 0 0
>> ppp0* 1500 <Link> 0 0 0 0 0
>> lo0 32768 <Link> 52 0 52 0 0
>> lo0 32768 127 localhost 52 0 52 0 0
>> tun0* 1500 <Link> 0 0 0 0 0
>> tun1* 1500 <Link> 0 0 0 0 0 >
>> Notice the *two* instances of both lo0 and sl0...
>I thought this was normal, since interfaces can have multiple addresses,
>they start with a `base' <Link> entry that netstat finds. Not sure about
I don't think it *is* normal, since this was not the observed
behavior before I updated my binaries to 950702. Prior to that, the
address provided to me by my ISP simply replaced the <Link> entry and
there remained a single instance of both sl0 and lo0...
Maybe this is the result of something that was 'fixed' in the 950702
binaries, and it should have been doing this all along, but I don't think
so... If I added my address as an alias this might make sense.
>> Immediately after starting the system (before making the SLIP
>> connection to my ISP) there is one instance of sl0, but still two instances
>> of lo0. Within a few minutes after starting my SLIP connection, I get
>> the message:
>> "routed[xxx]: deleting route to interface sl0 - timed out"
>hmm - maybe you should fiddle with /etc/gateways (man routed)
>or use gated (dont ask how :-)
I can stop this message from routed by simply not running it
(routed_flags=NO in /etc/netstart)... This is not the problem. I just
don't understand why routed would tell me that it is deleting a route to
an interface that never had a route assigned to it (it can't be deleting
the route to the active sl0, since it continues to function normally, and
there is no change in the output of 'netstat -r'). Further, why does it
*not* delete the route to the inactive lo0?