From owner-freebsd-net Thu Mar 22 7:27:40 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from cody.jharris.com (cody.jharris.com [205.238.128.83]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B438E37B71C; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 07:27:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nick@rogness.net) Received: from localhost (nick@localhost) by cody.jharris.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f2MFX3W40482; Thu, 22 Mar 2001 09:33:03 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from nick@rogness.net) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 09:33:03 -0600 (CST) From: Nick Rogness X-Sender: nick@cody.jharris.com To: Ruslan Ermilov Cc: Wes Peters , Garrett Wollman , net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Indirect routes with indirect gateways, bugfix In-Reply-To: <20010322094429.B53063@sunbay.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > I wrote: > > > > Unless someone has a good motivation for not doing this, I am going > > to commit the attached patch that disallows indirect routes with > > indirect gateways. > > > Okay, I will rephrase this. Can you give me at least one example when > adding an indirect route with indirect gateway will work? If not, I > strongly insist on excluding this code. I agree that this is an administration error. However, you could add a static route like given in the example, and for some unkown reason, *expect* a routing daemon to learn a direct route to this network or indirect gateway (not a good idea). That's the only reason I can think of off the top of my head...I'm sure there's other reasons. Nick Rogness - Sanitation Engineer, or might as well be. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message