> > 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.
Except that such code will still be needed to correctly deal with an address that fails DAD -- which is my earlier point: you end up removing flexibility without being able to actually simplify the architecture because the state inherently exists. > > 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? As above, I see no value in that separation: we end up with all the same complexity but less flexibility and generality. -- meem _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
