On (04/21/09 14:33), Peter Memishian wrote: > > I think Erik's point was that we should separate this enable/disable > > address knob for the kernel from the administrative enable/disable knob. > > Yes, and I think that's a valuable separation.
yes. > My understanding was he > wanted to also get rid of the administrative-enable/disable-address knob > altogether (partially on the grounds that other Unix variants don't have > it, and partially on the grounds that it's more complexity). I think Yes, and that's a valid argument in defense of interface enable/disable. For example, routing daemons like quagga already have code to deal with interface up/down notifications, and have historically had to maintain special code to deal with the "address up/down" state. > being able to down/up addresses is both convenient (temporary disable > without teardown) and also a reasonable mechanism to do things like > retrigger DAD (not to mention that it's also going to still be possible > for some time to come via ifconfig), so I'm not in favor of that. If we separate the retrigger DAD functionality (which is relatively recent and afaict is not a documented interface) from the IFF_UP per address functionality, do we actually have a valid need to down an address? --Sowmini _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
