On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 11:07 -0400, James Carlson wrote: > Sebastien Roy writes: > > By "overlapping", you mean other default routes? If they were more > > specific routes, then they were being used instead of the default route > > to begin with by definition, and removing the default route would have > > no effect for those destinations covered by the more specific route. > > > > Does dhcpagent install multiple default routes? > > Yes. So can other daemons. ;-}
Yes, but using probe-based failure detection with dynamic routing seems a bit misguided to begin with. On that note, and assuming that we define what dhcpagent is doing as "dynamic routing", then documentation of this interaction might be the way to go. > > > Further, Jim mentioned that routing daemons also do this, though I > > > didn't see anything that did this in ON's in.routed or in SFW's quagga > > > source. > > > > Consider a default route learned through a routing protocol. When the > > link goes down, we may not delete that route immediately based on the > > link state flag, but we will cease to receive updates from the router > > We do take it down immediately. Check the IFF_GOOD and IS_IFF_UP > definitions in defs.h. Ah, right, I'd forgotten about that. There you go, either way, routes go away. > > Another way to do this while preserving the semantics you've defined for > > IFF_RUNNING would be to modify dhcpagent to ignore the IFF_RUNNING flag > > on IPMP interfaces. > > "Ew." I agree, I was suggesting this as something slightly better than leaving the IFF_RUNNING flag set and using another flag to denote link failure. Still "Ewey", but not as "Ewey". -Seb
