From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNUhGIzFRTEAbKEI=?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] IPV6: remove addresses and routes when carrier is lost Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:28:36 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <20080604.022836.31952523.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> References: <20080604.011717.77875207.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20080603102144.571df55b@extreme> <20080603.102501.193702820.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org To: davem@davemloft.net Return-path: Received: from yue.linux-ipv6.org ([203.178.140.15]:58029 "EHLO yue.st-paulia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753215AbYFCR2A (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:28:00 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080603.102501.193702820.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: In article <20080603.102501.193702820.davem@davemloft.net> (at Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:25:01 -0700 (PDT)), David Miller says: > From: Stephen Hemminger > Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:21:44 -0700 > > > The patch just makes carrier_off respond the same as doing 'ip link set dev eth0 down' > > (or ifconfig eth0 down). A router needs to be able to re-route when link fails. > > But I can't see how this behavior makes sense for the normal desktop case > and it disagrees with existing practice for many years. > > If I pull out my network cable while making some adjustments in my > rack, and then plug it back in, I don't expect to lose my static > routes on that interface. > > That doesn't make any sense at all. How about ignoring routes via down interface? --yoshfuji