On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 04:38:52PM -0500, Michael H Lambert wrote: > > > 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.
Is it possible to have RIP advertise itself as a default route gateway, and then the fact you have 0.0.0.0/1 and 128.0.0.0/1 on the box itself will take care of the routing when the packets arive at the router? I thought that was what 'default-information originate' was for. You don't need the two /1 routes advertised through RIP as long as you do advertise that you are a default gateway, unless it is somehow important everyone else go directly to your chosen gateway and not through you. -- Len Sorensen _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
