I wrote:
>
> Unless someone has a good motivation for not doing this, I am going
> to commit the attached patch that disallows indirect routes with
> indirect gateways.
>
Okay, I will rephrase this. Can you give me at least one example when
adding an indirect route with indirect gateway will work? If not, I
strongly insist on excluding this code.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 10:41:54AM -0700, Wes Peters wrote:
> This allows a crude sort of "policy routing", if that is of any value.
> I don't see what it hurts, or any reason to remove it. A misconfigured
> routing table is a system administration problem, not a code problem.
On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 04:16:21PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> <<On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 13:36:11 +0200, Ruslan Ermilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The routing code (bogusly?) allows to add an indirect route with
> > also indirect gateway. This results in some nasty bugs:
>
> My sentiment is the same as Wes's.
Thanks,
--
Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine
http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
