On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 12:18 +0200, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 09:11:22AM +0000, Kenth Eriksson wrote:
Hi!
Why does not static routes in dormant state show of up in the routing table? I expexted all routes to be visible in 'show route'. If the route is not installed into the kernel, then that should be some way (in bird case I believe that is the exclamation mark).
Hi
The original design is that only valid routes are in the routing table and protocols are responsible for adding or removing routes when they become or ceased to be valid. Later that was bit changed with recursive BGP routes, which are there always and routing table is responsible for recomputing next hops, but the basic design is still here for regular routes.
I agree that it would make sense to have more uniform approach here, like having routes with invalid / unreachable next hops in the routing table, but not propagating them, and perhaps we will change to that in the future. OTOH, there are other reasons why static routes are dormant - next hop is reachable but iface is link-down, or route has BFD trigger and assoicated BFD session is down.
Could you provide a patch on 2.0.4 for this behaviour? Or would it require larger re-design?
The exclamation mark is more like route should be installed into kernel, but installation failed. If route is not supposed to be installed (e.g. rejected by kernel export), there is no exclamation mark.
-- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo
Ondrej 'Santiago' Zajicek (email: santiago@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."