On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 07:26:08PM +0100, Richard Chivers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> That makes a lot of sense thanks, and appears to have solved the problem,
> we had a route added through our loopback interface in production"
> "!/sbin/route add -reject default 127.0.0.1"
>
> Is that the best/general pra
Richard Chivers(r.chiv...@zengenti.com) on 2020.04.27 19:26:08 +0100:
> Hi,
>
> That makes a lot of sense thanks, and appears to have solved the problem,
> we had a route added through our loopback interface in production"
> "!/sbin/route add -reject default 127.0.0.1"
>
> Is that the best/genera
Hi,
That makes a lot of sense thanks, and appears to have solved the problem,
we had a route added through our loopback interface in production"
"!/sbin/route add -reject default 127.0.0.1"
Is that the best/general practise in general?
Cheers
Richard
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 8:25 AM Claudio Jek
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 08:44:42PM +0100, Richard Chivers wrote:
> Not sure how I missed the clear information in the man page...
>
> "If set to default, a default route pointing to this router will be
> announced over OSPF"
>
> It seems I am just having an issue and it should work as I expected.
Not sure how I missed the clear information in the man page...
"If set to default, a default route pointing to this router will be
announced over OSPF"
It seems I am just having an issue and it should work as I expected.
I will do some more diagnosis in the morning...
On Sun, 26 Apr 2020, 17:
5 matches
Mail list logo