Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:42:05 -0800 From: John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@freebsd.org>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] interface routes Message-ID: <20130307214205.GD50035@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <51384443.5070209@freebsd.org> References: <513834E4.7050203@FreeBSD.org> <51384443.5070209@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andre Oppermann wrote this message on Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:39 +0100:
> >Adding interface address is handled via atomically deleting old prefix and
> >adding interface one.
>
> This brings up a long standing sore point of our routing code
> which this patch makes more pronounced. When an interface link
> state is down I don't want the route to it to persist but to
> become inactive so another path can be chosen. This the very
> point of running a routing daemon. So on the link-down event
> the installed interface routes should be removed from the routing
> table. The configured addresses though should persist and the
> interface routes re-installed on a link-up event. What's your
> opinion on it?
>
> Other than these points I think your code is fine and can go
> into the tree.
The issue that I see with this is that if you bump your cable, all
your connections will be dropped, because as soon as they try to send
something, they'll get a no route to host, and this will break the
TCP connection... If we keep the routes when the link goes down,
the packet will be queued or dropped (depending upon ethernet driver),
but the TCP connection will not break...
--
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?20130307214205.GD50035>