Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>