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 22:29:59
[ On Saturday, July 28, 2001 at 11:39:50 (+0900), email@example.com wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: should the default route get a new interface automatically?
> so you swap interface A and B back and forth on net#1 and net#2?
> then, announce default route from the default router to net #2,
> and let the server listen to it. your problem will be gone
> (the primary source of your problem is that you have static default
> route configured onto your box!)
Well, first off the route doesn't actually change. The gateway always
has the same IP address (and the same MAC most of the time too!). It's
exactly the same except for the internal interface "flag" that the
kernel sets itself.
I have a static default route because I have but one router. There's
nothing to change even when I swap the NICs (except for the silly
interface flag the kernel sticks in there all by itself).
And no, I do _not_ want to have to make anything dynamic in these
scenarios. I explicitly do not want anything on these networks to be
uttering any routing protocols on purpose, and I definitely do not want
anything to ever listen to any routing protocols, and certainly _never_
to honour anything learned from them!!!! The routing is very static on
I guess, though I'm not willing to try to find out, that "routed -q"
might be smart enough to delete and then add the default route again
when it hears the same advertisment come in from a new interface. It
would be kind of surprising to find out that it's that smart though....
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>