From owner-freebsd-security Sun Jun 30 19:42:55 1996 Return-Path: owner-security Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA14813 for security-outgoing; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 19:42:55 -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 TAA14781 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 19:42:40 -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 WAA13469; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 22:38:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 22:39:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Tao To: Kenneth Merry cc: security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is "routed -q" necessary? In-Reply-To: <199607010044.UAA24617@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: > > Well, there *might* be a reason to run routed, even if you only have > one default router, and you hardwire the default router in ahead of > time. Is it possible to tell routed not to mess with the default route? Our main router to the Internet for this subnet is a Cisco, but there are also Ascends and Livingston PM-2e's providing routing for dialup customers. I think I need to be running routed if I want to use a classless routing protocol like RIPv2. We have a couple of Web servers that each have a /25, which isn't possible with just RIP. -- 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"