[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080603113411.0af753d8@extreme>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:34:11 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] IPV6: remove addresses and routes when carrier is
lost
On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:46:40 -0700
>
> > It is not what desktop users want, that is why it is a dynamic configuration
> > option via /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/ethX/link_detect.
> >
> > But it is what a router wants. So why not allow it? Obviously, Vyatta
> > users expect systems behave same as Cisco.
> >
> > The problem with doing it all in user space are not impossible just more difficult:
> > * links bouncing lead to synchronization problems
> > * existing Quagga code avoids messing with "system routes"
> > * Quagga has to be portable to Solaris/BSD etc..
> >
> > More at:
> > http://osdir.com/ml/network.quagga.devel/2004-08/msg00009.html
>
> If it's a route behavioral attribute, make it as such and add
> a new rtnetlink route attribute. If it's not there, existing
> behavior is maintained.
>
How would this work for system generated routes which occur
when address is added to interface?
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists