Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!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: <9002170000.AA23013@alw.nih.gov>
Date: 17 Feb 90 00:03:08 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 17

> I think the routing substrate ought to be as much of a black box to
> the hosts as is possible, with communication between the hosts and
> routers happening in a formalized way, say via a protocol.
> Eavesdropping is leaving yourself open for a lot of problems in the
> future.

I agree with this, but don't know how to explain to people that they
can't do their work because a router is down and the elegant solution
to the problem is still under construction.

RIP is a special case, because there are already a lot of hosts that
understand it and it's fairly easy to put just a default route out onto
a network.  I don't suggest eavesdropping on any other protocol.  And
it's really just a temporary expedient until gateway discovery and dead
router discovery are implemented.  As far as I've heard, a protocol for
dead router discovery is not even under discussion yet.  So it's going
to be a long while before this problem is solved the right way.