Thank you Tom for documenting your trials. Every little bit helps the next guy all that much more. I don't think we'd be deleting gateways just because they're rejecting RIP, certainly not in a short period of a month or two. I'm not sure what factors we can use to determine whether a gateway is out of service, but just rejecting RIP isn't enough. The primary reason for detecting ICMP unreachable replies to RIP transmissions is to avoid annoying people who aren't gateways anymore - in particular, people who have inherited a dynamic address that used to be a gateway. What I do is turn off RIP transmissions to that particular address for the duration of the RIP transmission cycle, so that they only get ONE packet every 5 minutes instead of two dozen. I don't want to have to field complaints from innocent bystanders whose firewalls are set to be too sensitive and verbose. And I do get those. - Brian On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 03:25:45PM +0000, Tom C wrote: > (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) > _______________________________________________ > In just the past couple of days I got my gateway working. I have a CS > degree, test software for a living and considered myself proficient on > linux but found getting the gateway to work correctly difficult due to > contradictions in documentation and examples. With KB3VWG's help I was able > to get it working. I'll just say it was a little difficult to get it going, > mostly due to understanding how it all works together. I'm using ubuntu > linux as a gateway. > > On the subject of non-operational gateways I would consider attempting to > send RIP broadcasts to them at a reduced rate instead of deleting them. In > my case I'm on a dynamic address. It doesn't change often, longest I've had > an address was about 5 months. It's most apt to change if I restart. I > registered my gateway in January... it was down all of Jan and Feb. It's > been intermittent but mostly down since until Monday evening of this week. > Had my gateway been deleted or removed from the list I'd now be offline > rather than online. > > Lynwood was a great help with understanding policy routing rules and I'd > like to publically thank him here. He's patient and points things out that > don't work. > > I plan to document my journey so others who wish to join the network can > learn from my mistakes. I'm a firm believer in understanding how it works. > > --tom /n2xu > > -- > 73 de N2XU/Tom Cardinal/MSgt USAF (Ret)/BSCS/Security+/IPv6 Certified >