On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:25 PM, System Administrator <ad...@bitwise.net> wrote:
> The answer to your question is right there in the very manpage
> paragraph you quoted below.
Yes, I should have clarified that I did see that. (That is why I quoted it)
It just does not seem to make a lot of sense that one would have to
manually intervene
in order to cut over to the fallback. So I guess that is my question
behind my question.
Why start the fallback table as disabled?
Would it not make a lot more sense to start it enabled so if <service>
was down it
would automatically cut over to <fallback> without manual intervention?
Or is there somehow a danger that it will go to <fallback> when
<service> is not down?
Is that why <fallback> is started disabled?
--
"Don't eat anything you've ever seen advertised on TV"
- Michael Pollan, author of "In Defense of Food"
