Re: route command baffles me.
- From: CptDondo <yan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:09:18 -0800
Jay G. Scott wrote:
In article <56qnkqF2aem2dU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
patrick <ptri.c.k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In news:eu9592$7e6$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Jay G. Scott <gl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
is there something equivalent to solaris' unplumb, so that# /sbin/ifconfig eth1 down
i can tell eth1 to drop dead? ie, w/o a reboot?
when you do ifconfig -a under with eth1 down, it still shows
eth1. i want ifconfig -a to not show anything about eth1
at all. i've done down, and down doesn't do that.
if you unplumb on solaris, ifconfig -a won't mention it
at all.
Open box, remove card.... Or am I missing something? Why can't it show up as an unconfigured interface if that's what it is?
The only other way I can think of is to remove the kernel module driving the card. But why do you need to do that?
What is the goal of this exercise? Seems like you're trying to do something "the solaris way" when this ain't solaris. Do it (whatever it is) the linux way.
What are you trying to achieve?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: route command baffles me.
- From: Jay G. Scott
- Re: route command baffles me.
- References:
- route command baffles me.
- From: Jay G. Scott
- Re: route command baffles me.
- From: patrick
- Re: route command baffles me.
- From: Jay G. Scott
- route command baffles me.
- Prev by Date: Re: route command baffles me.
- Next by Date: Re: route command baffles me.
- Previous by thread: Re: route command baffles me.
- Next by thread: Re: route command baffles me.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|