From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] IPV6: remove addresses and routes when carrier is lost Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:06:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080603.120640.151150916.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080603104640.21026cdb@extreme> <20080603.105308.196677970.davem@davemloft.net> <20080603113411.0af753d8@extreme> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: shemminger@vyatta.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:46594 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751244AbYFCVgv (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 17:36:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080603113411.0af753d8@extreme> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Stephen Hemminger Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:34:11 -0700 > On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:53:08 -0700 (PDT) > David Miller wrote: > > > 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? Ok, then this takes us back to making userland take care of it. You say this is difficult, by how different is this from any other kind of event response and synchronization that these routing daemons have to do already?