sepherosa_gmail.com abandoned this revision.
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8904
EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
To: sepherosa_gmail.com, delphij, royger, decui_microsoft.com,
honzhan_microsoft.com, howard0su_gmail.com, adrian, bz
glebius added a comment.
I don't think that the patch is in the right direction. The problem comes
from historical behavior that assigning an address is implicit UP. For a modern
networking equipment it is a normal administrative situation that sysadmin
wants to assign an address or an alias
sepherosa_gmail.com added a comment.
In https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8904#185970, @karels wrote:
> I think the change is a step in the right direction. Certainly, "ifconfig
xxN down" followed by an implicit UP should not cause any change to the routing
table. Does anyone know why the "
karels added a comment.
I think the change is a step in the right direction. Certainly, "ifconfig
xxN down" followed by an implicit UP should not cause any change to the routing
table. Does anyone know why the "down" is removing the route? That seems
wrong to me.
REVISION DETAIL
https:
sepherosa_gmail.com added a comment.
In https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8904#184430, @hrs wrote:
> The cause is that the prefix route was removed by in_scrubprefix() in the
PRC_IFDOWN handler and never reinstalled upon PRC_IFUP because the
reinstallation is done only for ifa passed to SIOC
hrs added a comment.
The cause is that the prefix route was removed by in_scrubprefix() in the
PRC_IFDOWN handler and never reinstalled upon PRC_IFUP because the
reinstallation is done only for ifa passed to SIOCAIFADDR. Just calling
if_up(ifp) looks too heavy to me because it causes extra
sepherosa_gmail.com created this revision.
sepherosa_gmail.com added reviewers: delphij, royger, decui_microsoft.com,
honzhan_microsoft.com, howard0su_gmail.com, adrian, bz, gnn, hiren, glebius,
rwatson, karels.
sepherosa_gmail.com added a subscriber: freebsd-net-list.
REVISION SUMMARY
This
