Peter Memishian writes: > > _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?
Yes, that sounds reasonable. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
