From owner-freebsd-net Wed Jun 13 4:49:33 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from alacran.it.uc3m.es (alacran.it.uc3m.es [163.117.139.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6253E37B401 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 04:49:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jrh@it.uc3m.es) Received: from it.uc3m.es (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alacran.it.uc3m.es (8.10.2/8.10.2/SuSE Linux 8.10.0-0.3) with ESMTP id f5DBodp06844 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:50:39 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: alacran.it.uc3m.es: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] claimed to be it.uc3m.es Message-ID: <3B27538F.BD0AFFC@it.uc3m.es> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:50:39 +0200 From: Juan Fco Rodriguez Hervella X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [es] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lista Subject: Re: a comment about a recent change on the route(8) command References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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