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

confusion over routing with rspf

Mike Bilow ()
Sat, 05 Jul 97 17:33:00 -0000

csmall wrote in a message to Mike Bilow:

c> I think we're forgetting here is that what rspf was to be
c> used for was to break up a subnet into little paths of
c> hopeful reachability. With the new kernels, the ifconfig'ed
c> routes should handle the general stuff, there may be a
c> default used and then rspf fills in the gaps. ie if I have
c> an interface with address/netmask of then what
c> I am usually saying is that hosts to
c> are *directly reachable* via that interface. RSPF takes
c> that best first effort and says "well except
c> which you have to use". (If you are reading
c> this Sam, it's a hint!). It's intra-subnet routing.

I'm not sure Fred would agree with you on this. As I understand the goal of
RSPF, it is to provide a dynamic routing protocol for global use in a connected
network, eventually propagating information throughout Net 44. This is where
the notion of horizons and such comes from, since routing exceptions are
intended to be propagated as far as is necessary to make the whole network able
to reach them, possibly everywhere.

In other words, the eventual objective is for me to be able to take an
"Australian" address, operate with it in the U.S., and have everyone in all of
Amprnet, including in the U.S. and Australia, learn how to route to it.

-- Mike, N1BEE