On Wed, Nov 18, 1998 at 06:52:18PM +0100, Havard.Eidnes@runit.sintef.no wrote:
>>...
>> 2) "leaf-router" vs. "strong host" vs.  .. status should be on a
>>    per-interface basis.
>
>I definately agree on this, at least on the "strong router" thing (I
>haven't thought much about the "strong host" model).

not per-interface.  per address.  as much as that might sound silly.

i think it's evident that everyone would like 127.0.0.1 to be a
"strong" address (using source routing and local port binding i've
telnetted from 127.0.0.1 on machine a to 127.0.0.1 on machine b with
several internet hops in between), but it's also arguable that lo0
should not be a "strong" interface (see paul goyette's comments on a
bgp system).

though i guess i could just add lo1 and put the bgp stuff on
that...no?

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."