Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 20:45 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:I'm still willing to be convinced; but the 'provider tables contain only default routes' approach is a dead end as far as I'm able to see.Yeah, it very well could be. I do recognize you are the word of experience here. But sometimes even hairbrained proposals sometimes make the experienced people think in ways or about solutions they had not considered before. I'll keep thinking about it. :-)
Brian,I owe you an apology. I missed (or kept ignoring) the essential feature of your proposal that *does* allow it to work; namely the way in which you re-ordered the routing rules. I awoke this morning with the realization that your proposal would work with the right rule ordering and when I looked at your original post, there it was. I'm truly sorry for being so dense/stubborn/whatever.
So given that it can work, we need to decide what to do about it. I really dislike the notion of two models for routing but I suspect that is the only way in which I could implement this scheme without causing serious compatibility issues. More thought needed.
-Tom -- Tom Eastep \ Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool Shoreline, \ http://shorewall.net Washington USA \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Public Key \ https://lists.shorewall.net/teastep.pgp.key
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list Shorewall-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
