From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] IPV6: remove addresses and routes when carrier is lost Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:40:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20080603144056.2c7ec127@extreme> References: <20080603104640.21026cdb@extreme> <20080603.105308.196677970.davem@davemloft.net> <20080603113411.0af753d8@extreme> <20080603.120640.151150916.davem@davemloft.net> 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: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([216.93.170.194]:47957 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751540AbYFCVk5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 17:40:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080603.120640.151150916.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:06:40 -0700 (PDT) David Miller wrote: > 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? The problem is more that the zebra code is keeping track of the RIB and has flags as well. Also, since maintainers are BSD/Solaris based, it makes life harder. Have already fixed a number of bugs in that area, of the route code where connected and recursive routes aren't getting cleared. It's not impossible to fix, just a bigger burden.