03.07.2012, 17:18, "Dave Taht" <[email protected]>: > 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.
The matter is, IPv4 default route comes flagged as either "static" or "boot" (both cases are displayed without "proto" column by /sbin/ip route). This is properly picked up. IPv6 default route comes flagged as "kernel".. > (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. I've got no required expertise to make such change safe for all, but starting with a Cero-only patch seems possible. -- Denis Ovsienko _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
