> On 09.06.2018 15:26, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > >> Author: ae > >> Date: Sat Jun 9 09:57:14 2018 > >> New Revision: 334875 > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/334875 > >> > >> Log: > >> Explicitly change the link state when we assingn an address. > >> > >> Since we are setting IFF_UP flag on SIOCSIFADDR, it is possible, that > >> after this link state information still not initialized properly. > >> This leads to problems with routing, since now interface has > >> IFCAP_LINKSTATE capability and a route is considered as working only > >> when interface's link state is in LINK_STATE_UP (see RT_LINK_IS_UP() > >> macro). > > > > I was going to say something when the ability to up and down > > the loopback interfaces was added as it perturbed me but I > > could not put my finger on places it may cause problems so > > remained silent on the matter. > > > > Now that I see this issue, having lo0 go DOWN can kill a network > > that is using exported from lo0 into a routing protocol routes that > > are used for management purposes. > > This was one of the main reasons of this change. > > > How does Cisco, Juniper, etc at handle this? > > Do any of them or all of them allow you to "down" loopback? > > AFAIK, they allow this.
Confirmed as far as you can "shutdown/no shutdown" a loopback device on Cisco, but I am not sure that is the same as the LINK_STATE_UP/DOWN. I am fine with it as it is now, but we need to keep an eye on it for any issues. -- Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
