El Domingo, 19 de Junio de 2005 10:48, Michal Vanco escribió: > On Sunday 19 June 2005 10:29, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 10:14:32PM +0200, Jose M Rodriguez wrote: > > J> Second, you may need a route daemon for this. ospf is a well > > known J> canditate where convergence in case of lost link is a > > must. > > > > While an OSPF daemon may stop advertising the affected route to its > > neighbors, the kernel will still have the route installed and thus > > the box won't be able to contact other hosts on the connected net, > > while they are reachable via alternate pass. > > Routing protocol should be responsible for removing affected routes > from FIB. For example quagga should remove all routes learned via > particular ospf neighbour when that neighbour is not reachable > anymore due to link goes down. But in case when no daemons are used > (`static' and `connected' are also `routing protocols'), kernel > should be responsible for doing that. > > > I've checked that Cisco routers remove route from FIB when > > interface link goes down. I haven't checked Junipers yet. > > Junipers do the same. It is the only feasible behaviour for router. > > > From my viewpoint, removing route (or marking it unusable) is a > > correct behavior for router. Not sure it is correct for desktop. > > Sure. > > > My vote is that we should implement this functionality and make it > > switchable via sysctl. I'd leave the default as is. >
I'm not sure of this. I also think that a devd or monitor daemon will be enough and easy to implement. I think NetBSD have allready some kinda of net monitor daemon for pppoe support (via sppp). Not sure if route support is included. But seems easy and clean that a kernel based solution. -- josemi > Agree. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
