> >Hell, I've been seeing this for well over a year. The last time I mentioned
> >it, everybody seemed to think I was nuts. :-)
> >
> >FreeBSD 3.0-19981015-BETA #1: Tue Jan 12 03:30:56 CST 1999
> >
> > routetbl289178 40961K 40961K 40960K 435741 0 0
> 16,32,64,128,256
>
> Well, I havent seen problems of this nature (yet), but for reference,
>
>
> netstat -nr | wc
> 69585 419164 4875822
>
> routetbl143718 19653K 21229K 21229K 6527152 0 0 16,32,64,128,256
>
> FreeBSD 3.3-RC #0: Wed Sep 8 13:37:19 EDT 1999
> uptime
> 9:44AM up 90 days, 20:35, 2 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
>
> This is a border router with 2 views of the net running defaultless.
See my other email, and now upon further though having full routes
without a default means the clonning code doesn't get used much,
since you already have real routes :-). Thus your problem would be
less. Hummmm.... let me go to a box running ``defaulted'' yet producing
several 100k connections/day and see how bad it's route space looks.
routetbl 329 45K 1532K 42709K 504060 0 0 16,32,64,128,256
:rgrimes{100}% netstat -ran | wc
69 403 4675
Yep... looks like it leaked 329-69==260 in 17 days uptime :-(
--
Rod Grimes - KD7CAX @ CN85sl - (RWG25) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
