Linux-Hams archive - July 1997: confusion over routing with rspf

confusion over routing with rspf

Mike Bilow ()
Fri, 04 Jul 97 08:43:00 -0000


Terry Dawson wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:

> get where they are going. It seems far more likely to me that
> someone jiggered the /proc/net stuff to distinguish between
> implicit and explicit routes, and that both rspfd the "route"
> command are messed up because of their dependence upon
> /proc/net information -- but this is just a guess.

TD> It was a well debated and calculated decision to not put
TD> implicit routes in /proc/net/route I believe. I missed the
TD> start of the thread on the net-dev list, but I'm fairly
TD> certain that the reason for doing so was actually
TD> specifically to assist routing daemons, with gated being of
TD> prime interest at the time.

Well, I don't see it having been properly debated and calculated. :-)

The whole underlying philosophy of RSPF is at odds with more conventional
routing schemes such as that implemented by gated. My opinion is that it
should be easily configurable as to how /proc/net/route is formatted, and
everyone will be reasonably happy. It makes little difference which is default
as long as it can be changed.

I suppose that, as long as manually adding the route overrides the default
behavior and makes RSPF work, this is best seen as a documentation issue.

You don't want to get me started on gated...

-- Mike