Subject: Re: should the default route get a new interface
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: Markus A. Boeing <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
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
Well, as in real life the choice is yours and there is no such thing as a
free lunch. :)
Markus A. Boeing