On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Paul Alukal wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Colin Campbell wrote:
>
> >
> > I have noticed that there is a -n option for the gated
> > command line that seems to indicate that gated will take
> > part in OSPF conversations but will not alter it's own,
> > already existing, routing table entries. Is this true?
>
> I believe -n option is for testing (-n tells gated not to update
> the kernel routing table).
GDC (8) says:
-n Run without changing the kernel forwarding table.
Useful for testing, and when operating as a route
server which does no forwarding.
So I would think it would work. It should be simple enough to test.
A while back, I think in version 3-5-5, you could use
options noinstall;
But I don't see the same option for newer (3-5-10) versions of GateD. You
might be able to use something like:
martians {
0.0.0.0 mask 0.0.0.0 ;
};
BTW - a couple of points:
1. The problem with this setup is that the routers are single points of
failure.
2. If you are using newer versions of GateD ( > 3-5-8) and cisco routers,
consider implementing MD5 auth for OSPF if you haven't already.
- brett
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
