On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 07:58:44PM +0400, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 09:54:19AM -0500, Brooks Davis wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 10:23:13AM +0200, Stefan Bethke wrote:
> > >
> > > Ouch. Don't ppp(8), OpenVPN etc. destroy the tun interface they're
> > > using when they exit? Flushing all routes then would be rather
> > > harmful. I'm glad I haven't updated to a newer -stable yet then :-)
> >
> > In general, no since tun interfaces can not be destroyed.
>
> Did you mean "in particular"? :-)
>
> The problem can be triggered by destroying any interface that can
> be destroyed. Just imagine getting rid of a defunct gif tunnel on
> a remote router, or removing an unused vlan, and totally losing
> connectivity to the router due to its default route having been
> flushed. The scenario still can be quite unpleasant. I'd rather
> change the default for $removable_route_flush to NO and let the
> kernel choose which routes should be flushed upon the physical
> ejection or software destruction of an interface. Note that this
> doesn't include static_routes_${ifn}, which are handled separately
> by pccard_ether_stop().Agreed. That code shouldn't be on by default. I've disabled in it HEAD and will MFC in a few days. As another poster said, I'm not even sure it should exist as an option. -- Brooks
pgpV8Z2BeouxM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
