Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 02:23:26PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 01:53:48PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yikes! That's a bad idea, if you mean doing it in syslog.
>>>>
>>> Why? Because of the risk of filling logs? If an interface is expected
>>> to flap a _lot_ then a knob to turn off logging about it would be
>>> useful. But I expect that such situations are so rare that any concern
>>> about filling logs is unrealistic.
>>>
>>>
>> Quite the contrary! If you run dhcp on multiple interfaces, then it
>> will periodically send probes out the network (or try at least). If you
>> have an interface marked up, but the cable is disconnected, then it will
>> flood the logs.
>>
>
> What?! Why should dhcpagent's sending a broadcast cause a link down
> message to be logged? Either the link status changed or it didn't; if
> it didn't change, don't log it.
>
Agreed. But that's not what Kais originally said, and you agreed with
(whether intentionally or not). A message should only be logged on a
_change_ of state, not for each packet that can't get delivered because
of link down. (To be fair, hme, et. al. don't log for each packet, but
still quite frequently, like once each 10 or 30 secs or so.)
-- Garrett
