On 2012-03-28 21:33, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 00:16, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The phrase "more than one default route" on its own makes my head hurt,
>> given the normal meaning in computer science of the word "default".
>>
>> One default route per source prefix in use makes perfect sense, in view
>> of the need for address pair selection and ingress-filtering avoidance.
>> (When I think about it, a default route even makes sense for a ULA prefix.)
>
>
> No, multiple default routes make sense even when they're not
> source-specific. For example, they make sense when you have two routers and
> one of them can go down. Remember that a route includes a next-hop, and
> that RFC 4861 defines a default router list (which is a list of possible
> next-hops for the default route).
Fair enough, although if we were starting again there might be a better way
of doing it.
Brian
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
