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.
andreas@planix.com         Networking, System Administration, Consulting
http://www.planix.com      Toronto, Ontario, Canada