From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Dichtel Subject: Re: RTM_DELROUTE on interface going down - when to send? Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:16:53 +0100 Message-ID: <52B16805.2010601@6wind.com> References: <20131217110512.GA11216@unicorn.suse.cz> <20131217140101.GB11216@unicorn.suse.cz> Reply-To: nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Network Development To: Michal Kubecek , Kristian Evensen Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f176.google.com ([74.125.82.176]:45704 "EHLO mail-we0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753746Ab3LRJRA (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Dec 2013 04:17:00 -0500 Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id w62so7073402wes.7 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2013 01:16:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131217140101.GB11216@unicorn.suse.cz> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le 17/12/2013 15:01, Michal Kubecek a =E9crit : > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 01:11:32PM +0100, Kristian Evensen wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Michal Kubecek = wrote: >>> >>> Before I start with the patch, I would like to ask: would it be mor= e >>> appropriate to send the message when the route is marked as dead or= when >>> it is actually deleted from the trie? >> >> I noticed the same thing a few months ago and submitted a patch >> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg254106.html). However, it wa= s >> not applied because it would cause too much traffic on large-scale >> routers (see davem's reply here >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg254186.html). > > Thank you for the pointer. However, I agree that the inconsistencies > (IPv4 vs. IPv6, RTM_DELROUTE vs. RTM_NEWROUTE) are really unfortunate= =2E Sure. Note that this fix is regularly proposed, another pointer: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/195516/