> _Perhaps_ that's an argument for allowing routes to exist in another > state -- "down." A "down" route doesn't participate in forwarding, > and isn't returned for RTM_GET, but does exist in the table if the > interface it would use is either down or not running.
Discussing this issue with Erik this morning, we came up with a proposal that has similar effect but with a lot less risk: in.mpathd could simply ignore requests to delete targets from an interface associated with a failed group, and continue to probe the existing target set (possibly expanded target set if new targets are added). When an interface in the group repairs, it could then rebuild the target list based on the latest routing table. I prototyped this (literally a one line change) and it "seems" to work. Thoughts? -- meem
