Re: IPv4 Address Flags

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20150519192723.GC22108%snowdrop.l8s.co.uk@localhost>,
David Laight  <david%l8s.co.uk@localhost> wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 05:48:46PM -0700, Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>> 
>> On 21 Apr, 2015, at 01:46 , Roy Marples <roy%marples.name@localhost> wrote:
>> > As discussed here [1], a few people voiced their opinion that they
>> > didn't like address removal when the carrier drops and would rather
>> > re-negotiate at carrier up. The first step of doing this is to add IPv6
>> > address flag semantics to IPv4 addresses.
>
>Dropping ip addresses and connections on 'carrier down' seems pointless
>to me.
>You can't detect the cable being unplugged 'one switch back', so
>why do you care about the local cable being unplugged.
>All it does is give people an incorrect view of how fast TCP will
>detect neteork outages.
> 
>> To tell the truth I think this is fixing the problem in the wrong
>> spot.  I don't see a big difference between unplugging the ethernet
>> cable and plugging it back in, and unplugging the USB or Thunderbolt
>> ethernet dongle and plugging it back in, or hot-swapping the ethernet
>> line card out and replacing it with another.  If I have active protocol
>> connections I would like them to survive the interface itself going
>> away and coming back just as much as I would like them to survive
>> the special case of the carrier dropping and coming back.  Adding
>> complexity to deal only with the latter doesn't seem worth it.
>...
>
>On linux we've had to use a 'bond' of one interface in order to stop
>USB interface interface disappearing due to electrical transients.

ifconfig wm0 softcar :-)

christos