On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 07:09:17PM +0200, Ondrej Filip wrote: > > > > Yes, would replacing direct { } with > > > > static { > > route 0.0.0.0/0 via 84.45.39.149; > > route 91.203.56.0/23 via "eth0"; > > } > > > > be more idiomatic here?
The second route has one side-effect - it is exported to the kernel as a device route. If you really have prefix 91.203.56.0/23 on eth0, it is definitely better to use direct route, if 91.203.56.0/23 is an aggregate of your internal routes, i would suggest to use drop route (route XXXX/YY drop), as suggested by Ondrej Filip. The drop route is also exported to the kernel routing table, which has a slight benefit that every destination (from XXXX/YY) that is not covered by more specific (IGP) route is dropped and not send through the default route. -- Elen sila lumenn' omentielvo Ondrej 'SanTiago' Zajicek (email: santi...@crfreenet.org) OpenPGP encrypted e-mails preferred (KeyID 0x11DEADC3, wwwkeys.pgp.net) "To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so."
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature