Hello,
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001 kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hello!
>
> > I can have routes through this device with preferred source IP
> > from another device.
>
> You cannot do this on device where IP is not enabled.
>
> The thing which you has proposed is just impossibility to disable once
> enabled IP.
Is it valid to:
ifconfig eth0 192.168.0.1 up
ifconfig eth1 0.0.0.0 up <--- enable IP
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/all/rp_filter
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/rp_filter
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth1/rp_filter
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/proxy_arp
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth1/proxy_arp
ip route add 192.168.0.2 dev eth1 src 192.168.0.1 <---
ip addr add 10.0.0.1/24 brd + dev eth1
ip addr del 10.0.0.1/24 brd + dev eth1
ops, the last command deleted the route to 192.168.0.2
in 2.2 it leaks link route to 10.0.0.0/24
> > Yes, nh_dev will be valid until dev->ifindex is valid.
> > The tests weeks ago show that it is enough. force=1 is the moment
> > when the device disappears (unregistered) but not if the above
> > problems remain.
>
> I recalled the discussion from mailboxes... Yes, the point is valid.
>
> Well, probably, fib_sync_down() should be called directly on unreg event.
> It is not a good idea to call fib_disable_ip twice, which would happen
> if you do check for nil dev->ip_ptr... Ugly, anyway.
The question is whether we should disable IP when the
last address is deleted. Under "disable IP" you mean to delete
all routes through this device but on this device remain only
the routes with prefsrc from another device. I don't see a good
reason to do it, may be I'm missing something? Note that this
does not contradict with the no_addr check in fib_validate_source.
May be some routes without prefsrc will remain until the device
is marked down or unregistered. But these routes don't have
prefsrc. They are added from user and can remain even after the
last address is deleted? And there are other routes with prefsrc
from another device, like the above example. In any case the
deleted address has nothing to do with these routes.
> Probably, for 2.4 it is enough safe just to leave stray ifindex.
> It is bug, but not a hard bug at least.
Yes, 2.4 cries too much with multipath routes on
unregistering one of the paths.
> Alexey
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
|