On Thu, 2005-10-11 at 19:46 +0100, Stefan Rompf wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 09 November 2005 22:12 schrieb Thomas Graf:
>
> > Something like this should do the job, although it doesn't take care
> > of taking things up again for now. Now all supporters of this should
> > tell me how to implement any case of on demand interface after taking
> > the routes down.
> > [...]
> > case NETDEV_CHANGE:
> > + if (!netif_carrier_ok(dev)) {
> > + fib_disable_ip(dev, 0);
> > + break;
> > + }
>
> fib_disable_ip() evicts all routes pointing to that interface, including
> userspace generated ones, doesn't it? If so, we don't get away that easy.
>
> That's where my idea of routes markted as inactive came from.
duh - I didnt mean to delete _all_ routes. I meant to use that event as
a base to delete whatever the kernel added and vice-versa.
what does inactive routes mean? blackhole routes i understand - but
thats even more bizare than adding link local routes for the kernel to
be doing.
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
