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 20:35:19
[ On Saturday, July 28, 2001 at 09:56:27 (+0900), email@example.com wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: should the default route get a new interface automatically?
> amount of dynamism does not have anything to do with justification
> for routing daemons. all you need to do is
> - advertise routes (like just default) from two of your routers
> - listen to them on your server (routed -q)
But I have no routers in this case -- just multiple networks. No
routing happens, the server just sits on multiple networks (production,
test, etc.). There are no routes to advertise in the first place.
(in fact I want to do even more of this -- I've an entire separate
DEChub900 with switches and hubs and stuff that I want to set up for
testing equipment and systems in a mostly isolated environment; a safe
place where I can let wild things loose, so to speak)
None of this changes the fact that the default route learns the
interface dynamically now, but then gets it stuck. One shouldn't need a
routing daemon to unstick it, especially not when the kernel can
easily dynamically re-learn similar interface flags on other routes.
(I won't even mention similar appletalk problems yet... :-)
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>