Subject: Re: [RFC] ipv6: don't flush routes when setting loopback down

From: Stephen Hemminger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:01:23 -0800

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:56:32 +0100
Jiri Bohac <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:38:17AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Jiri Bohac <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > I have the feeling that Eric's patch is the safest solution we
> > > have so far:
> > Eric's patch has other regressions, see the discussion.
> 
> What regression do you mean? I have read the whole discussion
> thoroughly. You only say in one message that deleting ::1 would
> propagate to routing daemons. And Eric correctly stated that
> people couldn't hit this, because  deleting ::1 would break
> things on its own.
> 
> Is there a real problem with Eric's fix?
> 
> Thanks,
> 

If address is assigned to loopback interface (other than ::1) then
Eric's fix doesn't work.  It is common to use an additional address
on the lo device when doing routing protocols.