Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:40:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Jon Dama <jd@ugcs.caltech.edu> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: Jochen Gensch <incmc@gmx.de>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Default route doesn't change to wireless device (ath0) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0509081426360.18161@ngwee.ugcs.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <20050907211811.GA19570@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <20050901225346.0923E16A41F@hub.freebsd.org> <200509072128.04819.incmc@gmx.de> <20050907194130.GA2436@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <200509072223.20560.incmc@gmx.de> <20050907211811.GA19570@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > And whenever there is a wireless network available (where the system can log > > in an get a network connection) the default route should be switched to that > > wireless nic. Or even better, if both connections work, automatically choose > > the faster one :-). > > That's the goal we're headed towards. Unfortunatly, it's not an instant > thing, particularly when people trying things like what you're doing > that don't map well into the old world view of static devices that don't > change networks. The old model is wrong and has been so for quite some > time, but that doesn't mean there aren't assumptions related to it all > over the place. Again, the problem is with the routing code. You should NOT need to be deleting default routes simply because one link goes down and another comes up on a different interface. Deleting the route simply because the interface went down is a hack.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.53.0509081426360.18161>