On (04/22/09 11:18), Peter Memishian wrote: > > > wanted to also get rid of the administrative-enable/disable-address knob > > > altogether (partially on the grounds that other Unix variants don't have > > > it, and partially on the grounds that it's more complexity). I think > > > > Yes, and that's a valid argument in defense of interface enable/disable. > > For example, routing daemons like quagga already have code to deal > > with interface up/down notifications, and have historically had to > > maintain special code to deal with the "address up/down" state. > > Except that such code will still be needed to correctly deal with an > address that fails DAD -- which is my earlier point: you end up removing > flexibility without being able to actually simplify the architecture > because the state inherently exists.
If an address fails DAD, then you should be in the same state as the case when you have IFF_NOLOCAL set, esp for the particular case in point (routing daemon dealing with DAD failure). Why do we need an additional address-up flag for this? --Sowmini _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
