Jon Dama wrote this message on Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 15:13 -0700: > > > Again, the problem is with the routing code. You should NOT need to be > > > deleting default routes simply because one link goes down and another > > > comes up on a different interface. > > > > > > Deleting the route simply because the interface went down is a hack. > > > > Got a new routing implemention handy? Until then, well have to live > > with hacks. :( > > True enough. I think the general idea is that you need a two layer > routing table. One that keeps tract of what is possible, and one that > keeps track of what is happening w.r.t existing flows. Once an interface > link goes down, the route in the second table invaliadates and you go back > to the first to find a new route. Isn't this what a routing daemon does, like routed? -- John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 "All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."Received on Thu Sep 08 2005 - 20:25:18 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:43 UTC