Subject: Re: Non-BGP multihoming
To: Curt Sampson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Andreas Wrede <email@example.com>
Date: 10/11/1997 19:51:01
On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:38:27 PDT Curt Sampson writes
> On Fri, 10 Oct 1997, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> > I think it sounds like a fine feature.
> We are going to use a sysctl for turning this on, right? I can
> think of situations where this could be a big loose.
I don't think we need the sysctl. The presence (or absence) of the
per-interface route should be sufficient. If there are no per-interface
default routes then routing will not be affected.
> (E.g., you buy transit from provider A, and peer with provider B,
> and have separate interfaces for the two. If somehow a packet is
> delivered through B from someone not on B, you'll never be able to
> reply to them.)
I don't understand what you mean by "buy transit". The scenario you
describe would imply some form of asymmetric routing to me.
Andreas Wrede Planix, Inc.
firstname.lastname@example.org Networking, System Administration, Consulting
http://www.planix.com Toronto, Ontario, Canada