Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!TCGOULD.TN.CORNELL.EDU!swb
From: swb@TCGOULD.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Scott Brim)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.proteon
Subject: lost p4200 mail
Message-ID: <8802020335.AA29527@tcgould.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
Date: 2 Feb 88 03:35:33 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 36

(This one failed to reach so many places I thought it wouldn't hurt to
send it again.  Apologies to those who received multiple copies, but
you'll benefit in the same way someday)

------- Forwarded Message

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 88 18:09:32 EST
>From: fedor@nisc.nyser.net (Mark Fedor)
Message-Id: <8802012309.AA16911@nisc.nyser.net>
To: bug-cgw@monk.proteon.com, swb@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu
Subject: Re:  split horizon vs. static routes
Cc: p4200@devvax.TN.CORNELL.EDU


	Scott,

	Remember the old arguments/discussions we had when
	developing gated?  This very question came up.  This
	exact problem caused a routing problem at JVNC.

	Our solution with gated was to not apply the split-horizon
	rule to STATIC routes.  This seems to have worked fine
	in our gated experiences.

	It's nice to see we are not the only ones who have grappled
	with this problem.  While not very consistent (and elegant),
	I think split-horizon should not be applied to STATIC
	routes.

	I'm sure there are other people who think otherwise....

	Mark


------- End of Forwarded Message