Re: [patch] interface routes

On 09.03.2013 23:17, Nikolay Denev wrote: On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:42 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote: Andre Oppermann wrote this message on Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:39 +0100: Adding interface address is handled via atomically deleting old prefix and adding interface one. This brings up a long standi

Re: [patch] interface routes

On Mar 7, 2013, at 9:42 PM, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > Andre Oppermann wrote this message on Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:39 +0100: >>> Adding interface address is handled via atomically deleting old prefix and >>> adding interface one. >> >> This brings up a long standing sore point of our routing c

Re: [patch] interface routes

On 08.03.2013 01:42, John-Mark Gurney wrote: Andre Oppermann wrote this message on Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:39 +0100: Adding interface address is handled via atomically deleting old prefix and adding interface one. This brings up a long standing sore point of our routing code which this patch m

Re: [patch] interface routes

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 07.03.2013 14:38, Ermal Luçi wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Andre Oppermann > an...@freebsd.org>> wrote: >> >> On 07.03.2013 12:43, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >> >> On 07.03.2013 11:39, Andre Oppermann wrote:

Re: [patch] interface routes

Andre Oppermann wrote this message on Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:39 +0100: > >Adding interface address is handled via atomically deleting old prefix and > >adding interface one. > > This brings up a long standing sore point of our routing code > which this patch makes more pronounced. When an inter

Re: [patch] interface routes

On 08.03.2013 00:53, Andre Oppermann wrote: On 07.03.2013 16:34, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: On 07.03.2013 17:51, Andre Oppermann wrote: On 07.03.2013 14:38, Ermal Luçi wrote: Isn't it better to teach the routing code about metrics. Routing daemons cope better this way and they can handle th

Re: [patch] interface routes

On 07.03.2013 16:34, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: On 07.03.2013 17:51, Andre Oppermann wrote: On 07.03.2013 14:38, Ermal Luçi wrote: Isn't it better to teach the routing code about metrics. Routing daemons cope better this way and they can handle this. So the policy of this behaviour can be co

Re: [patch] interface routes

On 07.03.2013 17:51, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 07.03.2013 14:38, Ermal Luçi wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Andre Oppermann > > wrote: >> >> On 07.03.2013 12:43, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >> >> On 07.03.2013 11:39, Andre Oppermann wrote: >> >>

Re: [patch] interface routes

It seems I have no choice :) WBR, Alexander On 07.03.2013, at 18:03, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 07.03.2013 14:54, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >> On 07.03.2013 15:55, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>> On 07.03.2013 12:43, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: On 07.03.2013 11:39, Andre Oppermann wrote

Re: [patch] interface routes

On 07.03.2013 14:54, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: On 07.03.2013 15:55, Andre Oppermann wrote: On 07.03.2013 12:43, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: On 07.03.2013 11:39, Andre Oppermann wrote: This brings up a long standing sore point of our routing code which this patch makes more pronounced. W

Re: [patch] interface routes

On 07.03.2013 15:55, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 07.03.2013 12:43, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >> On 07.03.2013 11:39, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>> On 07.03.2013 07:34, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: Hello list! There is a known long-lived issue with interface routes addition/del

Re: [patch] interface routes

On 07.03.2013 14:38, Ermal Luçi wrote: On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Andre Oppermann mailto:an...@freebsd.org>> wrote: On 07.03.2013 12:43, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: On 07.03.2013 11:39, Andre Oppermann wrote: On 07.03.2013 07:34, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:

Re: [patch] interface routes

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 07.03.2013 12:43, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > >> On 07.03.2013 11:39, Andre Oppermann wrote: >> >>> On 07.03.2013 07:34, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >>> Hello list! There is a known long-lived issue with interface r

Re: [patch] interface routes

On 07.03.2013 12:43, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: On 07.03.2013 11:39, Andre Oppermann wrote: On 07.03.2013 07:34, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: Hello list! There is a known long-lived issue with interface routes addition/deletion: ifconfig iface inet 1.2.3.4/24 can fail if given prefix is a

Re: [patch] interface routes

On 07.03.2013 11:39, Andre Oppermann wrote: > On 07.03.2013 07:34, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: >> Hello list! >> >> There is a known long-lived issue with interface routes >> addition/deletion: >> >> ifconfig iface inet 1.2.3.4/24 can fail if given prefix is already in >> kernel route table (for

Re: [patch] interface routes

> This brings up a long standing sore point of our routing code > which this patch makes more pronounced. When an interface link > state is down I don't want the route to it to persist but to > become inactive so another path can be chosen. This the very > point of running a routing daemon. So o

Re: [patch] interface routes

On 07.03.2013 07:34, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: Hello list! There is a known long-lived issue with interface routes addition/deletion: ifconfig iface inet 1.2.3.4/24 can fail if given prefix is already in kernel route table (for example, advertised by IGP like OSPF). Interface route can be

[patch] interface routes

Hello list! There is a known long-lived issue with interface routes addition/deletion: ifconfig iface inet 1.2.3.4/24 can fail if given prefix is already in kernel route table (for example, advertised by IGP like OSPF). Interface route can be deleted via route(8) or any route socket user (so