Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:51:49 -0600 (CST) From: Hal Snyder <hal@vailsys.com> To: jordyn@bestweb.net Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why enable routed by default? Message-ID: <199801220051.SAA17230@crocodile.vale.com> In-Reply-To: <v03102801b0ec3d09e669@[209.94.100.34]> (jordyn@bestweb.net) References: <v03102801b0ec3d09e669@[209.94.100.34]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> X-Sender: jordyn@pop.bestweb.net > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 19:33:36 -0500 > From: "Jordyn A. Buchanan" <jordyn@bestweb.net> > Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG > At 10:24 AM +1030 1/22/98, Greg Lehey wrote: ... > >Can't we change the default to not starting the [routed] daemon? > > This would be a good idea. Even on systems that are not leaf nodes, I > think the demand for RIP is becoming increasingly small in the brave new > world of classless routing. (Yeah yeah, there's RIPv2, but that fails to > correct many of the other deficiencies of RIP). Having something like this > on by default can also add a bit of complication to your life when you are > expecting only your routers to be exchanging RIP updates and suddenly your > hosts start getting involved as well... ... Default of "routed" disabled sounds good here. Just wanted to say that we use a lot of RFC 1918 on our intranet, one Class C per collision domain. This has breathed new life into RIP, which is making a comeback after massive purge a year or so ago when LAN was subnetted to kingdom come.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801220051.SAA17230>