On Sunday 19 June 2005 21:54, Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote:
> Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> > My vote is that we should implement this functionality and make it
> > switchable via sysctl. I'd leave the default as is.
> >
> > What is opinion of other networkers?
>
> How about also adding a sysctl for setting a delay time between event
> and disabling of the route? Then even people with roaming wlan cards can
> benefit.
> Also it is in my opinion that the route be disabled (moved to a passive
> route table maybe?) and not deleted.
This is what I meant initially. Marking route passive is better than just 
deleting it and it'll be also faster to recall the route back in case of link 
up.

Attachment: pgpnkVJdIM0W1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to