Is this normal behavior for a route to be present when the associated interface doesn't have a connection and is showing in a "down" state?
[admin@MikroTik] > ip route print where 10.10.198.102 in dst-address
Flags: X - disabled, A - active, D - dynamic,
C - connect, S - static, r - rip, b - bgp, o - ospf, m - mme,
B - blackhole, U - unreachable, P - prohibit
That’s a concern as standard networking describes that if the interface is down, then routing to the associated IP address is removed. Otherwise you end up routing traffic to a next hop that is no longer valid. Surely, I don’t have to manually disable an ip address on an interface if that interface is now disconnected??
I also should have elaborated in a little more detail. I am trying to establish an RDP session to the 10.10.198.102 address. When this IP Address is in the state originally listed;
[admin@MikroTik] > ip route print where 10.10.198.102 in dst-address
Flags: X - disabled, A - active, D - dynamic,
C - connect, S - static, r - rip, b - bgp, o - ospf, m - mme,
B - blackhole, U - unreachable, P - prohibit
I can not access the destination. If I manually disable the IP Address on the interface, then I am able to get there as there is no longer a local route with greater preference. This is where I'm saying normal networking is not working as I would expect. In my Cisco lab, if I duplicate the same conditions, the route is not present while the physical interface is down from cable being removed.