From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [RFC] ipv4: add link_filter sysctl Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:34:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20090318.223452.113685961.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20090313161253.0f02da26@nehalam> <20090318.182115.43965264.davem@davemloft.net> <20090318194239.1adc47d2@nehalam> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: shemminger@vyatta.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:38570 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750827AbZCSFfF (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:35:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090318194239.1adc47d2@nehalam> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Stephen Hemminger Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:42:39 -0700 > Unfortunately, network management tools expect routers to behave this > way: WWCD I understand your concern but I would never approach the specific problem you stated that way. If I want to know that the link to the next hop of the router is down, I'd ping the next hop not that router's interface IP address. That is pretty much the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Or, if I specifically wanted to diagnose connectivity to "B" I'd use traceroute and/or work my way back with pings, hop by hop. People expect Linux to do a lot of things the way other systems do, so what? If we have a reasonable way to approach solving a particular problem, and in this case we certainly do, we gain nothing by adding the knob besides placating a robot unwilling to learn new things. Sorry, I'm not applying this.