Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:54:49 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sten_Daniel_S=F8rsdal?= <lists@wm-access.no> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Michal Vanco <vanco@satro.sk> Subject: Re: Routes not deleted after link down Message-ID: <42B5CD89.6070509@wm-access.no> In-Reply-To: <20050619082944.GA11972@cell.sick.ru> References: <51688.147.175.8.5.1119105461.squirrel@webmail.satronet.sk> <42B46C9B.7000206@mac.com> <200506190004.48066.vanco@satro.sk> <200506182214.33279.josemi@redesjm.local> <20050619082944.GA11972@cell.sick.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > My vote is that we should implement this functionality and make it > switchable via sysctl. I'd leave the default as is. > > What is opinion of other networkers? > How about also adding a sysctl for setting a delay time between event and disabling of the route? Then even people with roaming wlan cards can benefit. Also it is in my opinion that the route be disabled (moved to a passive route table maybe?) and not deleted. At my old job i came across situations where the lack of this feature caused headaches and once or twice the loss of a customer. -- Sten Daniel Sørsdal
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42B5CD89.6070509>