On Tue, 08 Jun 1999 14:34:19 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Yes, I understand why: rip uses the kernel table as its storage for the
> routes, as does *nos. Ok, good, that simplifies the program. There is
> no way of doing a "route addprivate" in Linux ? Marking a route to not
> to be exported.
Not that I know of. There is also another problem with the newer
2.2.x series of kernels in that the flags associated with a route
are not supported. The man who looks after IP Version 4 in Linux
wants routers to use rtnetlink messages to pass routing information
to and from the kernel, and unless I can find any documentation on
this, my brain is not up to understanding the rather complex source.
I started looking into this because I wanted dynamic routes to be
subject to time expiry if they hadn't been updated for a while. The
lack of support for the dynamic flag makes it difficult for rip98d
to identify the static from dynamic routes - because it shouldn't
expire static routes.
> > It may be possible to mod the source of rip98d, so that its routes
> > are taken from a file other than /proc/net/route.
> Yes, but that should be a backgroud process. Not a bad idea.
It could be a 'cron' job done every five minutes or so. You'd lose
the benefits of the 'flash' triggered update throughout a network.
Maybe it would be better to have a file of addresses that you don't
want transmitted, and for rip98d to consult that before emitting a
route ?
73, Gareth.
--
http://www.rat.org.uk/
