On Thu, 8 Sep 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > 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? > No, a routing daemon such as routed discovers the information to put in those tables. In this case, the user + dhcp are fulfilling this task. I doubt that my wireless access point would participate in network RIP or router discovery anyways. We're only talking about relatively basic functionality here...Received on Thu Sep 08 2005 - 21:45:43 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:43 UTC