Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:05:13 -0400 From: dennis@etinc.com (Dennis) To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: interfaces, routes, etc. Message-ID: <199607162305.TAA22595@etinc.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[...] >But if you view the word "interface" as meaning something that >corresponds uniquely to a single physical piece of hardware, then >the ET approach doesn't work, and the other approach makes more >sense, i.e., treating the interface as a single NBMA interface, >with which are associated multiple point-to-point links. the ET approach does work, and NMBA doesn't, unless you kludge a lot of the routing code. On a different note.. Is there anyone working on or thinking about being able to point routes at an interface rather than an address? i.e. route add 211.17.12.1 -interface ed0 or something similar? With aliasing and all this talk of NMBA its going to be a larger and larger issue. You can do this in LINUX and it makes life easier and is much more readable as well. Its particularly useful for setting up routing when interfaces don't yet have addresses (ie they are learning them via RARP, or INVARP). Dennis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Technologies, Inc. http://www.etinc.com Synchronous Communications Cards and Routers For Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame Relay, PPP, HDLC, and X.25 for BSD/OS, FreeBSD and LINUX
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607162305.TAA22595>