Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:36:19 +0100 (CET) From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: killing@multiplay.co.uk Cc: jrhett@netconsonance.com, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Possible regression in ifconfig under7.0 - removes validdefault route Message-ID: <20081117.233619.85395429.sthaug@nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: <5FD58BCD6B4C409DA7E7C30150FB10C7@multiplay.co.uk> References: <89DE4FDF67DC40AE88477897DF4CD0E7@multiplay.co.uk> <188BDB85-46C0-41AA-B270-DA03BBD4CFF2@netconsonance.com> <5FD58BCD6B4C409DA7E7C30150FB10C7@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Thanks for the confirmation on that its not a regression Jo. It really > is a nasty little bug so I'll raise a PR for it, hopefully someone > with the power will then fix it :) This leads to the question - what do people *want* with respect to static routes? I know what *I* want: The static route behavior that Cisco, Juniper and other big router vendors have, i.e. - A configured static route exists in the routing table as long as the nexthop IP address is valid. If the nexthop becomes invalid (for instance if you lose link on an Ethernet interface), the static route is also removed from the routing table. - But (and here's the big difference) - *if the nexthop comes back*, for instance because your Ethernet interface gets link again, the configured static route is inserted into the routing table again. Note that with this behavior, changing the IP address of an interface would not result in the default route being deleted, as long as the nexthop for the default route remained valid. Oh yeah, since we're in wishful thinking mode, I want interface descriptions too... Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081117.233619.85395429.sthaug>