Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:04:17 +0200 From: Michal Vanco <vanco@satro.sk> To: Phil Regnauld <regnauld@catpipe.net> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sten_Daniel_S=F8rsdal?= <lists@wm-access.no> Subject: Re: Routes not deleted after link down Message-ID: <42B81E61.3090809@satro.sk> In-Reply-To: <20050620071701.GE1695@catpipe.net> References: <51688.147.175.8.5.1119105461.squirrel@webmail.satronet.sk> <20050619082944.GA11972@cell.sick.ru> <42B5CD89.6070509@wm-access.no> <200506201113.34307.vanco@satro.sk> <20050620071701.GE1695@catpipe.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Phil Regnauld wrote: >Michal Vanco (vanco) writes: > > >>On Sunday 19 June 2005 21:54, Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote: >> >> >>>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. >>> >>> >>This is what I meant initially. Marking route passive is better than just >>deleting it and it'll be also faster to recall the route back in case of link >>up. >> >> > > Deleting the route is definintely the most annoying thing you can > do -- Linux does that, and that's no network reference (try and > find RTF_STATIC in the Linux routing code). Returning "Network > unreachable" is the proper thing to do, but keep the route in the > table... Effectively removing the route from the forwarding > table is a job for a routing demon. > > Yes. Marking route inactive this way is the best solution (and the cheapest one) i think. michal
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42B81E61.3090809>