On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Michel Arboi wrote: [about 169.254.0.0/16] > Just curious: how do they avoid address clashes? Just rely on chance? There is a protocol intended to avoid them. See: http://files.zeroconf.org/draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal.txt > > A nice property of these addresses (in the context of RIP testing) is that > > they are not supposed to be routable. > > Maybe that could be a second test: if the router accept such address, > this means that it is really misconfigured? I'd say there is a room for improvement if it accepts such a route. :) It might be a problem but IMHO, it is irrelevant compared to the fact the router accepts unauthenticated route advertisements at all. > But if there is a loop in the network, there is a risk that the bogus > route will go round for a while, no? Hmm...yes. Idea: give the bogus route the highest possible metric (15 for RIP) to limit its distribution to other routers. --Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ] "Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 04:40:03 PDT