Re: [patch] interface routes

2013-03-09 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
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

2013-03-09 Thread Nikolay Denev
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

2013-03-08 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
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

2013-03-08 Thread Ermal Luçi
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

2013-03-07 Thread John-Mark Gurney
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

2013-03-07 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
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

2013-03-07 Thread Andre Oppermann
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

2013-03-07 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
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

2013-03-07 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
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

2013-03-07 Thread Andre Oppermann
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

2013-03-07 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
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

2013-03-07 Thread Andre Oppermann
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

2013-03-07 Thread Ermal Luçi
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

2013-03-07 Thread Andre Oppermann
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

2013-03-07 Thread Alexander V. Chernikov
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

2013-03-07 Thread sthaug
> 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

2013-03-06 Thread Andre Oppermann
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