Routes not deleted after link down

[Michal Vanco]

Phil Regnauld wrote:

>Michal Vanco (vanco) writes:
>  
>
>>On Sunday 19 June 2005 21:54, Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>My vote is that we should implement this functionality and make it
>>>>switchable via sysctl. I'd leave the default as is.
>>>>
>>>>What is opinion of other networkers?
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>How about also adding a sysctl for setting a delay time between event
>>>and disabling of the route? Then even people with roaming wlan cards can
>>>benefit.
>>>Also it is in my opinion that the route be disabled (moved to a passive
>>>route table maybe?) and not deleted.
>>>      
>>>
>>This is what I meant initially. Marking route passive is better than just 
>>deleting it and it'll be also faster to recall the route back in case of link 
>>up.
>>    
>>
>
>	Deleting the route is definintely the most annoying thing you can
>	do -- Linux does that, and that's no network reference (try and
>	find RTF_STATIC in the Linux routing code).  Returning "Network
>	unreachable" is the proper thing to do, but keep the route in the
>	table...  Effectively removing the route from the forwarding
>	table is a job for a routing demon.
>  
>
Yes. Marking route inactive this way is the best solution (and the
cheapest one) i think.

michal