From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jul 2 12:24:08 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id MAA07635 for current-outgoing; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 12:24:08 -0700 Received: from duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu (!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*!#$%^&*@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu [18.43.0.236]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA07629 for ; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 12:24:07 -0700 Received: by duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12GNU) id PAA22366; Sun, 2 Jul 1995 15:23:49 -0400 Date: Sun, 2 Jul 1995 15:23:49 -0400 Message-Id: <199507021923.PAA22366@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> From: "Charles M. Hannum" To: pete@puffin.pelican.com CC: current@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <199507021900.TAA26156@puffin.pelican.com> (message from Pete Carah on Sun, 2 Jul 1995 19:00:32 GMT) Subject: Re: Paul Richards: sysconfig routed setting Sender: current-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk 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. I disagree. First of all, he said that only `gateways' need routing information, and multi-homed hosts are not (necessarily) gateways. Secondly, it *is* plausible for single-homed hosts to rely on multiple routers negotiating shortest paths and sending redirects -- provided that there is a router discovery protocol so you don't get screwed when one router goes down. However, this still leaves multi-homed hosts with inefficient and possibly incorrect routing.