15 Aug
2013
15 Aug
'13
9:55 p.m.
No they shouldn't both be allowed. There isn't a way to dynamically choose the
route based on whether one or the other connection is up. Packets sent to the
down route are simply lost.
Regards,
Bob
"Eric Fort <eric.fort(a)gmail.com> says:"
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
are these 2 entries for a single route or 2 separate routes to a single
destination? It seems to me they are actually separate redundant routes to
the same /21. should redundant routes not be allowed? It would seem quite
the reverse that redundancy being useful and importaint these ought to be
allowed to stand so long as they are valid routes to the specified /21.
Eric
AF6EP
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:54 AM, G1FEF <chris(a)g1fef.co.uk> wrote:
> (Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
> _______________________________________________
> Hi Marc,
>
> No, there should not be two entries for one route and the portal should
> not allow this to happen, so I will look into how it occurred and amend the
> code as necessary.
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
--
/~\ The ASCII | Bob Brose N0QBJ
\ / Ribbon Campaign | http://www.qbjnet.com/
X Help cure | mailto:bob@qbjnet.com
/ \ HTML Email | public key at http://www.qbjnet.com/key.html
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who
don't