--8GpibOaaTibBMecb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 09:47:03PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> To get b, we would have to do purgeif processing on address removal.

(At least your earlier version of) b sounds preferable to me, anyway.
I might very well imagine a scenario where the interface is not
getting detached, but when I delete addresses I immediately want
cached routes cleared and groups removed.  Say, where I'm building
something to do load balancing or failover with alias addresses, as
one hypothetical scenario).

Not doing so winds up causing all sorts of odd surprises, even if your
panics are fixed.  Nice job of analysis, by the way, very nice.

--
Dan.

--8GpibOaaTibBMecb
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCJoYqEAVxvV4N66cRAsWnAJ0eJ5irK5GAiOFWzcG7gQ95zW7tkwCgqP24
zoVfQFjrlrnBpu7jBRVAblk=
=0yNc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--8GpibOaaTibBMecb--