On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 12:18 +0200, Ondrej Zajicek wrote: > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do > not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender > and know the content is safe. > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 09:11:22AM +0000, Kenth Eriksson wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Why does not static routes in dormant state show of up in the > > routing > > table? I expexted all routes to be visible in 'show route'. If the > > route is not installed into the kernel, then that should be some > > way > > (in bird case I believe that is the exclamation mark). > > Hi > > The original design is that only valid routes are in the routing > table > and protocols are responsible for adding or removing routes when they > become or ceased to be valid. Later that was bit changed with > recursive > BGP routes, which are there always and routing table is responsible > for recomputing next hops, but the basic design is still here for > regular > routes. > > I agree that it would make sense to have more uniform approach here, > like > having routes with invalid / unreachable next hops in the routing > table, > but not propagating them, and perhaps we will change to that in the > future. OTOH, there are other reasons why static routes are dormant - > next hop is reachable but iface is link-down, or route has BFD > trigger > and assoicated BFD session is down.
Could you provide a patch on 2.0.4 for this behaviour? Or would it require larger re-design? > > The exclamation mark is more like route should be installed into > kernel, > but installation failed. If route is not supposed to be installed > (e.g. > rejected by kernel export), there is no exclamation mark. > > -- > Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo > > Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: [email protected]) > OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, > wwwkeys.pgp.net) > "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
