Static dormant routes not shown

[Kenth Eriksson]

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 at 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."