Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] IPV6: remove addresses and routes when carrier is lost

From: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:40:56 -0700

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[email-masked]> wrote:

> From: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:34:11 -0700
> 
> > On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
> > David Miller <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > > If it's a route behavioral attribute, make it as such and add
> > > a new rtnetlink route attribute.  If it's not there, existing
> > > behavior is maintained.
> > 
> > How would this work for system generated routes which occur
> > when address is added to interface?
> 
> Ok, then this takes us back to making userland take care of it.
> 
> You say this is difficult, by how different is this from any
> other kind of event response and synchronization that these
> routing daemons have to do already?

The problem is more that the zebra code is keeping track of the
RIB and has flags as well. Also, since maintainers are BSD/Solaris
based, it makes life harder. 

Have already fixed a number of bugs in that area, of the route
code where connected and recursive routes aren't getting cleared.
It's not impossible to fix, just a bigger burden.