From: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:24:31 -0700
> Flush the forwarding table when carrier is lost. This helps for
> availability because we don't want to forward to a downed device and
> new packets may come in on other links.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger
On Thu, 2006-12-10 at 14:32 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > I am on the other extreme - this is problematic if you have a large
> > table already learnt. Agrevate that with an unstable link and it gets a
> > lot worse. Both of which dont sound unrealistic in say a wireless AP.
>
> We don't su
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:30:33 -0400
jamal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-12-10 at 16:10 -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 11:24:31AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > > Flush the forwarding table when carrier is lost. This helps for
> > > availability because we
On Thu, 2006-12-10 at 16:10 -0400, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 11:24:31AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Flush the forwarding table when carrier is lost. This helps for
> > availability because we don't want to forward to a downed device and
> > new packets may come in on
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:10:44 -0400
Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 11:24:31AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Flush the forwarding table when carrier is lost. This helps for
> > availability because we don't want to forward to a downed device and
> > new pa
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 11:24:31AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Flush the forwarding table when carrier is lost. This helps for
> availability because we don't want to forward to a downed device and
> new packets may come in on other links.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECT
