On 2015/09/22 23:07, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > Martin Pieuchot(m...@openbsd.org) on 2015.09.13 16:08:50 +0200: > > On 13/09/15(Sun) 15:51, Alexander Bluhm wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:15:50AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > > > This makes the kernel simpler as it no longer try to find a new ifa > > > > when a route with a stale address is being used. > > > > > > This makes the code simpler, which is good. > > > > > > I am still not convinced that we want to loose the feature that the > > > routes jump to another interface address. When we have multiple > > > suiteable addresses and one gets deleted, the system can use another > > > one. > > > > This is the price to pay for making the code simpler. I strongly > > believe this "feature" is a side effect of history that should not > > have been added in the first place. > > > > However I'd like to fix potential issues with this diff before committing > > it, so tests are welcome :) > > Hi, > > i found the time to play with your diff. > > On a router (where you probably wouldn't to this operationaly) you get tons > of "route xxx vanished before delete" from bgpd and ospfd, but they continue > to work, apparently as intended. > > I havent found a box with pppoe to test. it would be nice if someone could > test that.
Preferably someone with a relatively unstable pppoe. Maybe one of those providers which kills sessions every day and forces an address change..
