Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 15:25:07 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: Jon Dama <jd@ugcs.caltech.edu> Cc: Jochen Gensch <incmc@gmx.de>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Default route doesn't change to wireless device (ath0) Message-ID: <20050908222507.GE793@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0509081509110.18161@ngwee.ugcs.caltech.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> <Pine.LNX.4.53.0509081426360.18161@ngwee.ugcs.caltech.edu> <20050908214834.GA8000@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.53.0509081509110.18161@ngwee.ugcs.caltech.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jon Dama wrote this message on Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 15:13 -0700:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Got a new routing implemention handy? Until then, well have to live
> > with hacks. :(
>
> True enough. I think the general idea is that you need a two layer
> routing table. One that keeps tract of what is possible, and one that
> keeps track of what is happening w.r.t existing flows. Once an interface
> link goes down, the route in the second table invaliadates and you go back
> to the first to find a new route.
Isn't this what a routing daemon does, like routed?
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050908222507.GE793>