On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 20:05 -0400, Peter Memishian wrote: > > _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?
That sounds like it should work. Is there potentially a race condition between dhcpagent removing the route and in.mpathd realizing that the interface has failed and therefore should not remove the next hop from the target list? -Seb
