> On 22 Dec 2016, at 11:38, Jim C. <[email protected]> wrote: > > Trying to understand a design decision in RIPD. I originally reported this > as a bug on quagga-users > (https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-users/2016-December/014604.html). > > <snip> > > This code is preventing us distributing the route 0.0.0.0/1 through RIP and > retaining it’s netmask. Would someone mind shedding some light on this code & > why the restriction exists? > > FYI: Our motivation for distributing 0.0.0.0/1 is to cause LAN hosts to > prefer one ISP over another. If the preferred ISP goes down, a script we’ve > written will remove the static route (and remove it’s companion route > 128.0.0.0/1), which causes the LAN to use the backup ISP.
This use case makes sense to me. However, quoting RFC 2453, "The special address 0.0.0.0 is used to describe a default route." It makes no reference to an associated netmask. Michael
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
