Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 16:34:23 -0400 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Routes not deleted after link down Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20050619161035.03720998@64.7.153.2> 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
At 04:29 AM 19/06/2005, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>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.
>
>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.
I like this idea as well, but you need to control how the routes would come
back after the interface comes back up ? This seems more of the province
of a routing daemon like quagga as opposed to a kernel feature no ?
---Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.2.1.2.0.20050619161035.03720998>