From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 18 20:04:51 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEB7B16A41C for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:04:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vanco@satro.sk) Received: from mail.satronet.sk (mail.satronet.sk [217.144.16.198]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6690C43D4C for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:04:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vanco@satro.sk) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.satronet.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA2B91605A111; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:04:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.satronet.sk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 11812-01-4; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:04:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.1.14.183] (strojar.garda.sk [147.175.8.5]) (using SSLv3 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.satronet.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC4C616051D5D; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 22:04:48 +0200 (CEST) From: Michal Vanco Organization: Satro s.r.o. To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 00:04:47 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.1 References: <51688.147.175.8.5.1119105461.squirrel@webmail.satronet.sk> <42B46C9B.7000206@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <42B46C9B.7000206@mac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200506190004.48066.vanco@satro.sk> X-Virus-Scanned: by ANTIvirus at satronet.sk Cc: Subject: Re: Routes not deleted after link down X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 20:04:51 -0000 On Saturday 18 June 2005 20:48, Chuck Swiger wrote: > Michal Vanco wrote: > > i discovered that routes are not deleted from routing table after > > link on interface goes down. For example: > > [ ... ] > > > Should't all routes via bge0 be deleted after link on bge0 goes down? > > Maybe. If the system was not going to be reconnected to that network > anytime soon, it would be a good idea. On the other hand, if the link down > was due to a transient failure of a wireless connection, which will be back > up in a second or two, it's much better not to drop the route and kill any > open connections. hmm ... this approach is may be appropriate for deskop instalation. what about internet router? shouldn't "fast convergence" be better in this case? imagine two links connected to the same router with different metrics. if first of them goes down, the second never gets used in this case. michal