> Simon J Mudd is rumoured to of said:
>
> > This is I think correct. Initially I have no specific routing information
> > to ax0 apart from the device configuration above, but this is sufficient
> > to route access to all hosts on the 44.133.228/26 network.
> While I am not up on "the networking rules" this I would consider to be a
> Bad Thing. I'd say all configurations of Unix have in them an ifconfig
> statement and then a route add statment straight after that for the network
> directly connected on that interface. Now Linux may be different, I will
> try to find out (probably in the next message in your mail-list).
>
> I'm surprised that you can route with no routes, if so this has definitely
> changed since I last looked at the Linux code, as if you brought interfaces
> up but had not route commands, all hosts, including yourself were
> unreachable.
To be honest I'd assumed the current linux case was true for all unices,
now you're making me doubt that, but certainly in linux this is very common
usage. Unfortunately I don't have Suns at work which I can play with to change
their ip addresses, and check if they do the same thing. However I'll try
and find out.
[snip]
> > Should not the "metric" of the interface's configuration
> > take priority over a dynamic "learnt" metric, which has to pass through
> > the same interface, or is the problem that ea4rct should not be
> > broadcasting routes TO this network ON THIS NETWORK?
> No, rspfd doesn't do that. It basically only looks at the routing table and
> because when it was written there wasn't proper support for metrics, it
> couldn't judge on metrics.
To be fair to you, I was using a friend's linux, which has been upgraded over
some time, and the route man page did say all over it "metric has not
been implemented". My linux (redhat 4.2) has an updated man page however.
Thanks for responding, Simon
-- regards,Simon J Mudd, Madrid SPAIN +34-1-559 2854 e-mail: terhi.victor@logonet.com [short messages - from radio hams] ----> jnxoh@mera.ru