Messages in this thread | | | From | "Fred Reimer" <> | Subject | RE: howto disable auto route setup? | Date | Tue, 2 Feb 1999 10:22:43 -0500 |
| |
I have not been following what this is all about yet, but the short answer is no. If it comes down to deciding how things should be implemented we should NOT just follow the practices of the router vendors, even if they all do the same thing. We should follow the RFCs that describe how IP addressing and routing protocols are supposed to work. If vendors implement an "option" such as zero-subnet-mask, then we can implement that "option" also, but it should not be part of the core implementation.
Router vendors are well known to implment things incorrectly to such an extent that it brings into question whether we should blindly follow their implmentations or start from scratch with the RFC's.
Fred
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu > [mailto:owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu]On Behalf Of Sam Mortimer > Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 8:57 AM > To: Mike Jagdis > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu > Subject: Re: howto disable auto route setup? > i was pondering whether someone might make this point whilst i was out > at lunch! my response is that we are discussing the routing > functions of > a general purpose OS. there is no reason why they should > work differently > from they way they might on a dedicated router. the router > is probably > doing it the right way. would it not makes sense to try to > emulate the > routers way of doing things? (it also occurred to that both > teltrend's > network iq series routers and bay's nautica products add the directly > attached interfaces routes automatically too) > > Cheers, > -Sam.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |