Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CU.NIH.GOV!RAF
From: RAF@CU.NIH.GOV (Roger Fajman)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc
Subject: Re:  Default routes in PC/TCP
Message-ID: <9002161957.AA21926@alw.nih.gov>
Date: 16 Feb 90 19:59:22 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 26

> When the group working on the Host Requirements RFC discussed
> eavesdropping routing protocols, I was on the side that said "SHOULD
> NOT".  I am keeping track of the GW Discovery effort, and given the
> most recent draft of the proposal, it should be simple to add.
> Multiple routers in the configuration should be in the next major
> release of PC/TCP in any case, and in the present version you can use
> BOOTP (via the RFC 1048 extensions) to set the single default router
> we presently support.
>
> James B. VanBokkelen           26 Princess St., Wakefield, MA  01880
> FTP Software Inc.              voice: (617) 246-0900  fax: (617) 246-0901

At the Interop 89 seesion on the Host Requirements RFCs, the question
of eavesdropping on RIP for the sole purpose of obtaining a default
route was raised.  There seemed to be little objection from the panel
to that.  I don't specifically remember what you said though.

The Gateway Discovery Protocol group does seem to be coming along.  But
they have defered the issue of dead gateway detection.  Thus my problem
of having a router go out of service doesn't seem to be dealt with.

BOOTP is definitely worth looking at.  Are you providing a server or
must it be on a Unix machine?  But BOOTP doesn't deal well with dead
routers either.

How do you plan to make use of multiple default routers?