Re: Routes not deleted after link down

2005-06-20 Thread Michal Vanco
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

Re: Routes not deleted after link down

2005-06-19 Thread Petri Helenius
Mike Tancsa wrote: I like this idea as well, but you need to control how the routes would come back after the interface comes back up ? This seems more of the province of a routing daemon like quagga as opposed to a kernel feature no ? The connected interface should try to transmit packet

Re: Routes not deleted after link down

2005-06-19 Thread Mike Tancsa
At 04:29 AM 19/06/2005, 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. I've checked that Cisco routers remove route from F

Re: Routes not deleted after link down

2005-06-19 Thread Sten Daniel Sørsdal
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 eve

Re: Routes not deleted after link down

2005-06-19 Thread Jose M Rodriguez
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 c

Re: Routes not deleted after link down

2005-06-19 Thread Michal Vanco
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 advertis

Re: Routes not deleted after link down

2005-06-19 Thread Gleb Smirnoff
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 st

Re: Routes not deleted after link down

2005-06-18 Thread Chuck Swiger
Michal Vanco wrote: On Saturday 18 June 2005 20:48, Chuck Swiger wrote: [ ... ] Maybe. If the system was not going to be reconnected to that network anytime soon, it would be a good idea. On the other hand, if the link down was due to a transient failure of a wireless connection, which will b

Re: Routes not deleted after link down

2005-06-18 Thread Jose M Rodriguez
El Domingo, 19 de Junio de 2005 00:04, Michal Vanco escribió: > On Saturday 18 June 2005 20:48, Chuck Swiger wrote: > > Michal Vanco wrote: > > > i discovered that routes are not deleted from routing table after > > > link on interface goes down. For example: > > > > [ ... ] > > > > > Should't all

Re: Routes not deleted after link down

2005-06-18 Thread Michal Vanco
On Saturday 18 June 2005 20:48, Chuck Swiger wrote: > Michal Vanco wrote: > > i discovered that routes are not deleted from routing table after > > link on interface goes down. For example: > > [ ... ] > > > Should't all routes via bge0 be deleted after link on bge0 goes down? > > Maybe. If the sy

Re: Routes not deleted after link down

2005-06-18 Thread Chuck Swiger
Michal Vanco wrote: i discovered that routes are not deleted from routing table after link on interface goes down. For example: [ ... ] Should't all routes via bge0 be deleted after link on bge0 goes down? Maybe. If the system was not going to be reconnected to that network anytime soon, it