4 ms·
That makes no sense. The kernel routing table of your PC should remove the link once the PHY has been detected to be down. That's even if your PC supports mul
by ra1n85 9y ago
That makes no sense.
The kernel routing table of your PC should remove the link once the PHY has been detected to be down. That's even if your PC supports multipathing.
We don't rely on layer 3 to communicate a link is down to us - we rely on layer 1.
- izacus 9y agoWhen cable/DSL falls down, it's not going to take PHY down. You'll have active ethernet but no packets will come through. With IPv4 the router will just fix up NAT. With IPv6 you now have to deal with significantly more complexity.
- ra1n85 9y ago>With IPv4 the router will just fix up NAT. With IPv6 you now have to deal with significantly more complexity. How so? In a multihomed environment, you'd still be PAT'ing to unique addresses on the WAN side (unless a FHRP is in use, which would be rare) - if one of those links go down, so too does all of the flows associated with address of the link. If no dynamic routing protocol or redirects are in use, the gateway with the down link will also eat half (assuming two gateways) of all egress traffic. IPv6 should be easier as no NAT/PAT is in use, therefore you have no challenges with statefulness or routing symmetry.
- izacus 9y agoIt SHOULD be easier. It's not on current widely available prosumer hardware. Yes, your connections will get temporary eaten. But for the typical developers workload that won't be a huge issue because most connections you do are short-lived. Configuring all your clients to properly switch vs. configuring your NAT router (with builtin functionality for exactly that) is orders of magnitude more complex.