Phil Regnauld wrote: >Michal Vanco (vanco) writes: > > >>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. >> >> > > Deleting the route is definintely the most annoying thing you can > do -- Linux does that, and that's no network reference (try and > find RTF_STATIC in the Linux routing code). Returning "Network > unreachable" is the proper thing to do, but keep the route in the > table... Effectively removing the route from the forwarding > table is a job for a routing demon. > > Yes. Marking route inactive this way is the best solution (and the cheapest one) i think.
michal _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
