Subject: Re: Non-BGP multihoming
To: Curt Sampson <>
From: Andreas Wrede <>
List: current-users
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.         Networking, System Administration, Consulting      Toronto, Ontario, Canada