From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] IPV6: remove addresses and routes when carrier is lost Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:28:21 +0200 Message-ID: <48457F35.5060801@trash.net> References: <20080602165347.5662f602@extreme> <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=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shemminger@vyatta.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:46546 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753452AbYFCR2X (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:28:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080603.102501.193702820.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > 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. Maybe the logic to disable those routes should simply live in the routing daemons or a seperate daemon.