Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 12:29:44 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Jose M Rodriguez <josemi@freebsd.jazztel.es> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org, Michal Vanco <vanco@satro.sk> Subject: Re: Routes not deleted after link down Message-ID: <20050619082944.GA11972@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <200506182214.33279.josemi@redesjm.local> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 10:14:32PM +0200, Jose M Rodriguez wrote: J> Second, you may need a route daemon for this. ospf is a well known J> canditate where convergence in case of lost link is a must. While an OSPF daemon may stop advertising the affected route to its neighbors, the kernel will still have the route installed and thus the box won't be able to contact other hosts on the connected net, while they are reachable via alternate pass. I've checked that Cisco routers remove route from FIB when interface link goes down. I haven't checked Junipers yet. >From my viewpoint, removing route (or marking it unusable) is a correct behavior for router. Not sure it is correct for desktop. 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? -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050619082944.GA11972>