[patch] interface routes

[Alexander V. Chernikov]

It seems I have no choice :)


WBR, Alexander

On 07.03.2013, at 18:03, Andre Oppermann <andre at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 07.03.2013 14:54, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
>> On 07.03.2013 15:55, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>>> On 07.03.2013 12:43, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
>>>> On 07.03.2013 11:39, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>> 
>>>> This is exactly what is done in current code for IPv4:
>>>> if_down calls if_unroute(), it cals prctlinput() for every interface
>>>> address, and domain-dependent function like rip_ctlinput calls
>>>> in_ifscrub() cleaning given interface route.
>>>> However, address route (/32) still remains (but route daemons, at least
>>>> bird, tends to ignore it since it is not listed as valid interface
>>>> address/mask).
>>> 
>>> IF_DOWN and link state down are not the same thing.  When the cable
>>> is unplugged the link state goes down but not the interface.
> >
>> Ups. I've missed 'link' keyword.
>> Imho 'operational down' should behave exactly the same as 'admin down'
>> e.g. delete interface routes from route table.
>> It should be not very hard to do.
> 
> Are you to implement it after the pinning patch? ;-)
> 
> -- 
> Andre
> 
>