On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 02:16:34PM -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > In the dynamic IP consumer world, that's not always the > case.
I'm not sure there are any sane solutions to routing in that world. Get a better ISP? I haven't had a dynamic address on anything in over five years... > The problem is that the content of those provider tables is dynamic > also. As I understand it, each provider table is essentially a copy of > the main table (so all known routing entries) minus any entries which > are a result of other providers. So given a situation where a > non-provider based interface (i.e. VPN) and/or routes show up, the > provider tables need to all be updated. > > Maybe there is a better way to do it than shorewall currently > implements. It would indeed be good if the provider tables could > somehow only need the relevant entries for what it's providing. Maybe > put the non-provider table before it in the routing rule list. Not > really sure. Hmm. I remember thinking about this a couple of years ago and seeing a solution, but it does not immediately come to mind now. I must cogitate further... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
