Configuring a new server, and documenting the whole process as I go, I was surprised to find my routing table shows destination of 169.254.0.0 for each of eth0, eth1 and eth2.

The rest of the table appears correct. The server is connected to the internet through eth0 and the 2wire gateway 192.168.1.254. The 2wire provides nat and firewall service. Wireless connectivity is turned off. The other 2 nic cards, eth1 and eth2 are plugged in to the 2wire as a switcher and not otherwise 'known'.

I know this looks like overkill, but it separates 2 unrelated users quite nicely and to me, at least, easier to maintain than convuluted zones in named. (There is of course a local named service running on the server.)

QUESTION: Can someone help me understand from whence this 169.154.0.0 destination arises, why does it tie in eith each of the 3 ethernet cards, and most important, is it safe for me to delete them???


route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
192.168.3.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 10 0 0 eth2
192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 10 0 0 eth1
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 10 0 0 eth0
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 10 0 0 eth1
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 10 0 0 eth2
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 10 0 0 eth0
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
0.0.0.0 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 UG 10 0 0 eth0


My thanks for lending me a hand of greater understanding here.

George

From rfc3330: (you can also have a look at: rfc3927)
It's basically a non-routable address (nothing to worry about). On a linux system you can remove it like this: route del -net 169.254.0.0 netmask 255.255.0.0
(anyway a system will give itself an address in this range if it doesn't get it via DHCP or some other means.... there route is usually there anyway)
...........
169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for
communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these
addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may not
be found...............

Thanks very much for taking the time to verify this.

I knew how to delete the routing but questioned whether I might have been 'covering things up' which in the computer world can almost be guaranteed to bite you when you think you are getting ahead.

Appreciate your 'heads up' on this.

George