On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Denis Ovsienko <[email protected]> wrote: >> Does anybody know where this difference comes from? > > The difference comes from NetworkManager. Its efforts in reproducing > high-metric RTPROT_KERNEL routes with low-metric RTPROT_STATIC ones are > effectively hiding the kernel issue outside of CeroWrt runtime. Would it be > better to add a watchdog shell script, which does the same, or patch the > kernel?
I would *much rather* patch the kernel than have a watchdog. However I don't quite understand the redistribution issue vs a vs ipv6 here. If I have a "redistribute kernel" on for ipv4, it does propagate the default route. (I note that I dislike network manager too as it tries too hard to work around bugs in the base OS and my own view of the world is far more "meshy") I'll gladly try pushing a patch up to the mainline if that's what is needed. > > -- > Denis Ovsienko > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel -- Dave Täht http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki - "3.3.8-6 is out with fq_codel!" _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
