On 10/01/2015 03:56 PM, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:46 -0400, Donald Sharp wrote: >> Joakim - >> >> Before I clean up the patch any further, I believe something like this is >> being proposed, is this correct? > > Something like that although flags should be mandatory, even if is is zero. > However, there was a discussion about having zebra autodetect ONLINK instead?
I am not sure how much of this made it to the archives, so let's just put it here: Imho, having a flag for NEXTHOP_IPV4_IFINDEX to specify the ONLINK semantics is better than adding a new nexthop type. I would also like to pose the following, possibly provocative, question, which might be an even stronger stand on ONLINK autodetection: Is this flag really needed? Couldn't Zebra just always set the rtnl onlink flag for nexthops that come in as NEXTHOP_IPV4_IFINDEX or NEXTHOP_IPV6_IFINDEX? Is there any case where a routing protocol will send NEXTHOP_IPV4_IFINDEX or NEXTHOP_IPV6_IFINDEX to Zebra where not installing the route because of a failing onlink-check is the correct behavior? I have encountered cases where not setting the rtnl ONLINK flag broke standard OSPF, (the host had IP addresses configured with the noprefixroute option, causing the onlink check to fail) however I have yet to encounter a case where always setting ONLINK is problematic. -Christian _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
