18 Nov
2014
18 Nov
'14
11:20 a.m.
Marius et al;
On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 19:05 +0200, Marius Petrescu wrote:
What if we were to change the "addprivate" flag for those BGP announced
to something like "addbgp" and have ripv2 either ignore it in its
broadcasts and in the encap.txt (which xnos should ignore also) or some
flag which would exclude it from being routed via ipencap?
The multitude of linux/xnos/bpq/etc users wouldn't have to all include
exceptions for these routes then, it'd be automagic no?
--
If Microsoft intended Windows to be for ham usage,
they would have incorporated our protocols into their kernel.
73 de Brian Rogers - N1URO
email: <n1uro(a)n1uro.ampr.org>
Web: http://www.n1uro.net/
Ampr1: http://n1uro.ampr.org/
Ampr2: http://nos.n1uro.ampr.org
Linux Amateur Radio Services
axMail-Fax & URONode
AmprNet coordinator for:
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, and Vermont.
route
addprivate 44.151.94.28/32 encap 44.151.94.28
So this host expects to get
encapsulated traffic to a gateway which is the
host itself. This leeds to a routing loop and is not possible with a regular
setup.
This encap entry is in fact plain and simple useless: It states 'you can
reach me via me' which gives not much information.