On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Scott Feldman <sfel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:47 PM, Andy Gospodarek
> <go...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote:
>
>> /* /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter */
>> diff --git a/kernel/sysctl_binary.c b/kernel/sysctl_binary.c
>> index 7e7746a..c9d0a0e 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sysctl_binary.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sysctl_binary.c
>> @@ -253,6 +253,7 @@ static const struct bin_table
>> bin_net_ipv4_conf_vars_table[] = {
>> { CTL_INT, NET_IPV4_CONF_NOPOLICY,
>> "disable_policy" },
>> { CTL_INT, NET_IPV4_CONF_FORCE_IGMP_VERSION,
>> "force_igmp_version" },
>> { CTL_INT, NET_IPV4_CONF_PROMOTE_SECONDARIES,
>> "promote_secondaries" },
>> + { CTL_INT, NET_IPV4_CONF_IGNORE_ROUTES_WITH_LINKDOWN,
>> "ignore_routes_with_linkdown" },
>
> Would "route_ignore_linkdown_nexthops" be a more accurate name? The
> patch marks link-downed nexthops to be ignored, not the route,
> correct?
>
> s/NET_IPV4_CONF_IGNORE_ROUTES_WITH_LINKDOWN/NET_IPV4_CONF_ROUTE_IGNORE_LINKDOWN_NEXTHOPS
Something like that. Not sure I like my suggestion. If dev is
nexthop dev in route, and dev is link down, exclude nexthop in route
lookup.
route_exclude_if_linkdown_nexthop_dev?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
