Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!NISC.NYSER.NET!fedor
From: fedor@NISC.NYSER.NET (Mark Fedor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.proteon
Subject: Re:  split horizon vs. static routes
Message-ID: <8802012330.AA17438@nisc.nyser.net>
Date: 1 Feb 88 23:30:20 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 43

>
>Date: Mon, 1 Feb 88 14:48:47 PST
>From: John Lekashman <lekash@orville.nas.nasa.gov>
>Subject: Re:  split horizon vs. static routes
>
>Umm, why should a p4200 have to cover for a defective non-routing
>oddgw?  I realize it would be nice if it did, but I think that the
>oddgw should participate in some sort of routing protocol, which
>could then be used.  I can see you wanting to set the static route
>in the p4200, and having everthing else pick up on that from there,
>but it seems counter-productive to accomodate broken (ie non-routing)
>gateways.  Perhaps it is more expedient to get proteon to hack
>up routing again, since they are more responsive than oddgw, but
>perhaps one should get oddgw to be repaired.
>
>					john
>>>>

	John,

	Your point is well taken and I can't really argue
	with it, but (there's always a but, eh?) let's say
	the oddgw was not broken.  It was only running a
	different routing protocol (let's say HELLO).  The
	keepers of this network didn't want to run gated
	anywhere (they didn't have a unix gateway around).
	They simply wanted to use scott's suggestion.
	They couldn't do it with the 7.4 software.

	Maybe I'm grasping for straws, but applying split-horizon
	to static routes seems to limit the usefulness of static
	routes.  And most times when you need static routes, you
	have this strange configuration and you need them to be as
	useful as possible.

	Like you said, this is not a bug (it's an opinion???).
	It sure would be nice if Proteon 7.4 didn't apply
	split-horizon to static routes.  I would like to see
	a change.   We'll see.

	Any other comments?

	Mark