On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 21:33 +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > well, the kernel doesnt add default routes - some admin or daemon does. > > So whatever solution it is should not delete such routes either. > > Sure. Inactivate them instead and activate back on carrier (IFF_RUNNING, > not the carrier alone) return. > > >> Seems inactive routes are really the way to go. But it should behave > >> as active in every aspect except being ignored for actual routing > >> (i.e., indistinguishable from userspace, normally added and removed). > > > > but what is this "inactive" thing? > > Not sure what do you ask. Inactive route, marked internally as such by the > kernel when carrier goes down.
You lost me dude. Let me be explicit: Issue 1: 1) There are routes that are added by the kernel. These are labelled as being added by the kernel. 2) Others maybe added by a dynamic routing daemon and these would be labelled as being inserted by such a daemon 3) Yet others are added by an admin using a command line tool such as iproute2, route, etc. And i can tell those as well. #1 is the contention, correct? at least this is what the dynamic routing protocol people have been whining about since 2.2 i.e only delete those which are added by the kernel. Is that what you are saying? Second issue: There is no such thing as "inactive" routes. Routes can be made to prohibit, blackhole, throw packets or become unreachable. Is that what you are saying? Or are these attributes insufficient and we need to invent something new? And to my ealier point: doing such a thing in the kernel is even more bizarre than doing #1 - as we do at the moment. But your mileage may vary. cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
