From owner-freebsd-security Sun Jun 30 16:59:20 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA28006 for security-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 16:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from post.io.org (post.io.org [198.133.36.6]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA27997 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 16:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zap.io.org (taob@zap.io.org [198.133.36.81]) by post.io.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA12550; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 19:55:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 19:55:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Tao To: Kenneth Merry cc: security@freebsd.org Subject: Is "routed -q" necessary? In-Reply-To: <199606302111.RAA23445@ulc199.residence.gatech.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Kenneth Merry wrote: > > It depends on what your network setup looks like. If you control all > the machines on your subnet, there's no problem with running routed > -q. Since I only have one default router anyway, there is no need to run routed at all? I figured it might help keep the routing tables down to a manageable size, with static and dynamic IP connections coming and going all the time. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob@io.org, taob@ican.net) Systems and Network Administrator, Internet Canada Corp. "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"