On (08/31/09 14:14), Sebastien Roy wrote: > > So should in.routed`rtm_lose meddle with default routes based on RTM_LOSING? > > I don't think so. Wiping out a route simply because one host that > happens to be covered by that route isn't reachable is unwise.
on further research, it's true that rtm_lose deletes the default route, but it also tries to fall back to alternate default routes when this happens and re-solicits for routers if no spares are available. So I'm trying to find out why the response to the mcast rtr solicit is taking so long [#], for the particular case listed in the CR (could be something about that particular env). But it does seem bad that rtm_lose would delete the default route if no spares were available- that, at least, should be avoided.. --Sowmini [#] long enough for users to notice and be annoyed. _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
