Subject: Re: should the default route get a new interface
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Markus A. Boeing <>
List: tech-net
Date: 07/30/2001 14:21:46
At 13:49 30.07.2001, Robert Elz wrote:
>In any case, the answer to this should not be to advise people to start
>running routed ...

Well, in principle I do agree. Running a routing protocol daemon, even in 
quiet mode, is not necessarily the best thing to do on a host. However, if 
you look at the alternatives, they have drawbacks as well.

The most elegant approach IMHO would be using a router discovery protocol. 
The challenge here is providing support for all of your end systems. I 
wouldn't say that router discovery protocols enjoy support on a wide 
variety of host systems.

Using default gateways would be another option. The challenges here come up 
if you have multiple exit points (i.e. redundant exit router) from your 
LAN. The use of special protocols on your routers -such as HSRP or VRRP- 
can help here but you can still run into (solvable) issues with multi-path 
equal-cost topologies.

The use of RIP in quiet mode could be a valid option as well. However, if 
you choose to go down that road it is mandatory to ensure proper 
configuration of your end systems (the quiet flag) and routers (i.e. access 
lists to define sources you accept routing updates from, not learning 
routes from RIP at all, controlling the information you want to inject into 
the RIP process...).

You could also think about using IPv6, which has some nice auto-configure 
options. :)

Well, as in real life the choice is yours and there is no such thing as a 
free lunch. :)


Markus A. Boeing