Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:50:39 +0200 From: Juan Fco Rodriguez Hervella <jrh@it.uc3m.es> To: Lista <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: a comment about a recent change on the route(8) command Message-ID: <3B27538F.BD0AFFC@it.uc3m.es> References: <y7vpuc8sj4c.wl@condor.jinmei.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
JINMEI Tatuya / =1B$B?@L@C#:H=1B(B escribi=F3: > = > I have a tiny comment about the following change to the route(8) > command: > http://www.jp.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sbin/route/route.c.diff?r1= =3D1.49&r2=3D1.50 > = > In the commit log, the committer said > = > Fixed the -iface breakage introduced with the latest KAME merge > in revision 1.48. It is pretty valid and often feasible to use > a non-point-to-point interface as the gateway. In which cases makes sense to use a non-ptp interface as the gateway? What is the behaviour in that case ? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B27538F.BD0AFFC>