On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 18:31 +0200, Christian Franke wrote: > 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?
This is my thinking too, ospfd should never send a route it doesn't want. Does any other protocol expect this? Possibly one should add ONLINK for any XXX_IFINDEX route? Jocke _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
