flushing active route table

August 16, 2011 at 18:13:59
Specs: Windows XP
how can i flush window XP active route table using command prompt?

See More: flushing active route table

Report •

August 16, 2011 at 20:54:20
i have tried to use the route delete command to remove the routes in xp. However it seems unsuccessful.
The following is the route table in my pc.

Active Routes:
Network Destination Netmask Gateway Interface Metric 25 1 30 30 30 25 25 25 30 25 10005 1 1 1
Default Gateway:
Persistent Routes:

When I try to delete the route , e.g.

route delete mask

it always prompts the error "The route specified was not found."

Report •

August 16, 2011 at 23:33:38
Try just

route delete

You can (almost) clear the routing table with

route -f

Report •

August 17, 2011 at 00:01:19
hi ijack,

Try both and i am only able delete what I set in the persistent route table but active route table still remain.

Report •

Related Solutions

August 17, 2011 at 00:51:13
That's what you would expect. Dynamic entries created by the Operating System will be recreated when you delete them. The only reason that this might not happen is if the entry was somehow incorrect.

Perhaps it would be more productive if you explained what you are trying to achieve by deleting routing entries. You certainly don't want to delete the one; if you could then you would lose contact with your router and the rest of the network.

Report •

August 17, 2011 at 01:09:11
hi ijack,

I am having a server with 2 lan port connection. lan 1 ip address is and lan 2 ip address is
Lan 1 is connected to a switch connecting to other servers, lan 2 is connected to and only thru another switch.
Try to ping and but unable to get thru. did a persistent route for and to interface but still unable to ping thru.
Route print and notice and is routing thru at active route table, thus suspect window still routing and .3 thru even persistent route had been set.

That is why i trying to see if there is any command to flush active route table.
Hope it is clearer. :)

Report •

August 17, 2011 at 01:36:38
I'm still unclear as to the point of your setup. If you want and 3 to be isolated from all but 111 then surely it would be simpler to set them up as a different network - say - or else subnet the network; then add a static route to that network via the interface that they are connected to.

But if you want them to see the rest of the network then what's the point of the second interface?

Report •

August 17, 2011 at 01:52:16
Hi ijack,

u are right to actually change the IP address of and .3 to a different network. the problem is i am having too many of this isolated and .3 appliance connecting to other similar server like 111 , 112 , 113. other server such as 112 and 113 is not giving me this problem but only 111.

Anyway i am trying to redo the persistent route and route change and 3 mask
to see whether is could change the active route table wrong routing.

Report •

August 17, 2011 at 02:36:22
I still can't see why it should be a problem to give the second interface a separate network. After all, you have to assign some address to it, so why not make it one that will effectively isolate the networks in the way that you require? It's much more difficult to isolate some device from others on the same network (I'd use a firewall if I had that requirement).

Having said that, I'm not sure why a specific persistant route shouldn't work, although it is more work, if you specify the appropriate interface. But it's not something that I have ever had the occasion to try; I've always found a private network for the isolated devices to be the most logical solution.

Perhaps I still don't understand your requirements.

Report •

Ask Question