On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 7:52 AM Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> However, relying on a kernel error looks a bit ugly to me, and I've put > >> it on my to-do list to catch the error earlier. > > > It should not re-advertise the route if it cannot install it, IMHO. > > It doesn't -- it detects the error and then marks the route as > uninstalled. However, it doesn't try with an alternate route -- if > a route to a given destination fails, we simply fallback to the default > route. > > So either we add code to retry with higher-metric routes that might work, > or we detect at startup whether the feature is available.
> Théo prefers > the latter approach, I'm waiting to see how difficult it is. I prefer the former approach, or rather a hybrid, detecting at startup that you can't do ipv6 nexthops, and filtering those routes out entirely from consideration for installation. To misquote john gilmore: "The internet considers old linux kernels as damage, and routes around them." > -- Juliusz -- Make Music, Not War Dave Täht CTO, TekLibre, LLC http://www.teklibre.com Tel: 1-831-435-0729 _______________________________________________ Babel-users mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/babel-users
