netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] IPV6: remove addresses and routes when carrier is lost

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:28:36 +0900 (JST)
From:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 
	<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
To:	davem@...emloft.net
Cc:	shemminger@...tta.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] IPV6: remove addresses and routes when carrier is
 lost

In article <20080603.102501.193702820.davem@...emloft.net> (at Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:25:01 -0700 (PDT)), David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> says:

> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:21:44 -0700
> 
> > The patch just makes carrier_off respond the same as doing 'ip link set dev eth0 down'
> > (or ifconfig eth0 down). A router needs to be able to re-route when link fails.
> 
> But I can't see how this behavior makes sense for the normal desktop case
> and it disagrees with existing practice for many years.
> 
> If I pull out my network cable while making some adjustments in my
> rack, and then plug it back in, I don't expect to lose my static
> routes on that interface.
> 
> That doesn't make any sense at all.

How about ignoring routes via down interface?

--yoshfuji
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html