From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Mar  7 07:59:55 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98A1505
 for <net@freebsd.org>; Thu,  7 Mar 2013 07:59:55 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no)
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 109576CB
 for <net@freebsd.org>; Thu,  7 Mar 2013 07:59:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 75461 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2013 07:53:12 -0000
Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33)
 by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 7 Mar 2013 07:53:12 -0000
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:53:12 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20130307.085312.41695129.sthaug@nethelp.no>
To: andre@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [patch] interface routes
From: sthaug@nethelp.no
In-Reply-To: <51384443.5070209@freebsd.org>
References: <513834E4.7050203@FreeBSD.org>
	<51384443.5070209@freebsd.org>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: melifaro@FreeBSD.org, net@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 07:59:55 -0000

> 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?

Yes please! This is what I take for granted on my routers.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no