[KLUG Members] Why this routing, anyone?

[Robert G. Brown]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:01:38 -0500, Adam Williams <awilliam@whitemice.org> wrote:

>>I've noticed this line in recent (RH9) routing tables:
>>169.254.0.0     *               255.255.0.0     U     0      0        0 eth0
>>I have deleted it without ill-effect, and found some reference to it....
>>Can someone tell us what purpose this routing has?

>Do you have an interface in the 169.x.x.x subnet?
Nope.

>If not did you possibly attempt to bring up a dhcp interface minus
>the dhcp server?
Nope. I don't use DHCP around here. It's all boring, static routing.

>169.254.x.x is "auto-self-configuration".  A dynamic interface will assign 
>itself an address on this subnet if via-remote configuration fails.  This 
>is new behaviour - see it also in Win2000/XP and I'm told in OS/X.  This 
>lets real honest to goodness idiots create a small IP network with no 
>configuration.  There is an RFC somewhere, but I don't recall the number.
OK.

>You can just ignore this subnet/route,  it should never have any effect 
>on a "real" IP network.
I delete it now, in rc.local. I don't like having routes unless I'm 
messing them up myself. :)

						Thanks and Regards,
						---> RGB <---