hi folks In the process of fixing 10377, I've been thinking a bit about how we need to distinguish between responses to various link down cases. The main questions are
- when do we unplumb IP? We don't want to unplumb if the failure is transient, as is likely the case with a wifi disconnect, but we do want to unplumb when a link's priority group is unselected, or when a link is wired and has been unplugged, since that's a user-driven act of deselection. - what state/aux state should the IP NCU be in? Here's my proposal: - if a wired link goes down, unplumb IP and mark the IP NCU as offline/conditions not met and unplumb IP. A cable has been unplugged, so it signifies intent. This is what happens today. - if a wireless link that was connected goes down, mark the IP NCU as offline/conditions not met and _do not_ unplumb IP. The only complication here is that when handling the IP NCU offline event, the state machine would have to examine the state of the underlying link to determine whether to unplumb or not. We'd unplumb if the underlying link was offline (as would be the case if another priority group activates), but not if it was wifi and offline*, since in the latter case we're still trying to reconnect. So this would change behaviour in that link down events for wifi link NCUs would be propogated to IP in terms of state changes, but we'd stop short of unplumbing IP. Sound reasonable? Thanks! Alan
