From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Olsson Subject: Re: suggestion for routing code improvement Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:29:40 +0200 Sender: owner-netdev@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <15541.29604.537736.704406@robur.slu.se> References: <15540.50303.858294.986710@robur.slu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Robert Olsson , Chris Friesen , Return-path: To: Julian Anastasov In-Reply-To: List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Julian Anastasov writes: > > include/linux/rtnetlink.h already contains the needed RTPROT_xxx > definitions. The most used daemons don't use RTPROT_STATIC. The kernel > does not know that the daemon registers static routes, they all > have its own RTPROT_value. The static routes are marked as such only > in the daemon's config file. May be it is possible value RTPROT_STATIC > to be marked in comments as a kernel property. Hello! There is already RTPROT_KERNEL and proto RTPROT_STATIC is way for the administrator to interact with the routing daemon even if is a you say that this is not currently implemented by all daemons. I have used this with gated. IMHO even static routes implements a routing policy from some administrator view and should therefore by configured, debugged etc. This job has to done somewhere and a userland daemon seems most adequate at least in my eyes. And with the current model the "network" comes up in a clean fashion. I think it easier to just add the needed routes rather to check the old history and deal with this. Probably we need to check is address, netmask changes etc so the old routes will be installed in the same context. A very simple daemon for static routes would do the job we are talking about here and should be easy to configure through config files or just via netlink. And just replace it with zebra/gated/bird when the complexity requires it. Cheers. --ro