Subject: Re: should the default route get a new interface automatically?
To: NetBSD Networking Technical Discussion List <tech-net@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/27/2001 19:13:43
[ On Saturday, July 28, 2001 at 08:34:17 (+0900), email@example.com wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: should the default route get a new interface automatically?
> do you know what routing daemons are for? ;-)
Ah, I don't think so -- especially not on simple multi-homed servers.
We're not talking about anything really massively dynamic here -- just
a way to avoid the obvious silly issues that the rest of the in-kernel
networking code seems to quite happily work around....
An IP route should be just an IP route, not an interface route -- the
interface tag in an ordinary IP route shouldn't have precedence. After
all I didn't set the interface tag manually when I initially assigned
the route -- it was learned dynamically. Fixing it currently involves
having to do the very unobvious -- delete the route and then add it back
again exactly as it was!
I know in the M$ world-view I'd be rebooting every time I wiggled a
cable, but hopefully we can avoid even having to reconfigure the same
things over and over again in *BSD....
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Secrets of the Weird <email@example.com>