Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 19:00:32 GMT From: Pete Carah <pete@puffin.pelican.com> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Paul Richards: sysconfig routed setting Message-ID: <199507021900.TAA26156@puffin.pelican.com> In-Reply-To: <199507012057.QAA26175@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <199507012057.QAA26175@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> you write: > HOSTS DO NOT NEED ROUTING INFORMATION. >What would you suggest that multihomed hosts do? He admits that *they* need routing information; what he doesn't consider is that all hosts on any network with more than one router needs routing information too, even though the host isn't multihomed. Rather that there is "an elegant" solution coming up. However, since it isn't there yet and routed is, we're kind of stuck :-( It *is* important with multihomed hosts on networks where more than one host is multihomed on the same networks (I have a network like that in a video shop where we have parallel enet and FDDI networks connecting about half of the hosts) that routed is started with -q on all hosts except for the router (or maybe *one* of the multihomed fileservers). In our case there is no need for routing FDDI packets to/from the ethernet because all the hosts are on the enet; if more than one routed is started without -q it can induce routing loops in this situation. (the SGI default is without -q; at least we did *that* right). We will be converting to a switched enet with the fddi only for fileservers; that will require routed -q on all hosts and non -q *only* on the switch box (or whoever routes; it may end up one (or more if the enet connections end up on different nets) of the fileservers again instead of the enet switch.) -- Pete
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199507021900.TAA26156>