Re: [Xen-devel] RE: new /etc/xen/network script

[Nivedita Singhvi <nsnix@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nivedita Singhvi wrote:
> Ian Pratt wrote:
>
> > So, ifdown does succeed in taking the interface down. I wander why the 
> > routes aren't getting removed?
>
> Are we sure that's the case? I think what is happening is
> that the routes are going down, but to bring up peth0
> again, we only do a ip link set peth0 up, which creates
> an interface route, but does not automatically generate
> a default route (since we aren't transferring routes
> in this case).
Urgh. Just synced with the correct script.

One potential issue is the link set of peth0, which creates
an interface route for peth0, at least on my currently
broken box.  The ifup of eth0 (veth0) will
try to add a duplicate route for the primary
subnet via eth0. Can't validate or test any of the above
since my box is crashing at boot, unrelated issue,
will dig into this tmrw further when I get onto a box..

This in no way explains why having the del_addrs works
for him when it's prior to the link set up of peth0 (??),
so this isn't the fatal error.

Would this make more sense: to have the route removal
happen as so:

--- network-bridge.orig 2005-08-17 03:38:13.000000000 -0700
+++ network-bridge      2005-08-17 04:08:33.298424365 -0700
@@ -197,6 +197,7 @@
        ip link set ${bridge} up
        ip link set vif0.0 up
        ip link set p${netdev} up
+       del_addrs p${netdev}
        if ! ifup ${netdev} ; then
                if [ ${kip} ] ; then
                        # use the addresses we grocked from proc/cmdline

Just for testing..

signed-off-by Nivedita Singhvi niv#us.ibm.com

thanks,
Nivedita


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel