On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 12:15:25PM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 07:58:44PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 09:54:19AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 10:23:13AM +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote: > > > > > > > > Ouch. Don't ppp(8), OpenVPN etc. destroy the tun interface they're > > > > using when they exit? Flushing all routes then would be rather > > > > harmful. I'm glad I haven't updated to a newer -stable yet then :-) > > > > > > In general, no since tun interfaces can not be destroyed. > > > > Did you mean "in particular"? :-) > > > > The problem can be triggered by destroying any interface that can > > be destroyed. Just imagine getting rid of a defunct gif tunnel on > > a remote router, or removing an unused vlan, and totally losing > > connectivity to the router due to its default route having been > > flushed. The scenario still can be quite unpleasant. I'd rather > > change the default for $removable_route_flush to NO and let the > > kernel choose which routes should be flushed upon the physical > > ejection or software destruction of an interface. Note that this > > doesn't include static_routes_${ifn}, which are handled separately > > by pccard_ether_stop(). > > Agreed. That code shouldn't be on by default. I've disabled in it HEAD > and will MFC in a few days. As another poster said, I'm not even sure > it should exist as an option.
Much appreciated! -- Yar _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"