On 11 Jul 2003, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 07:51, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > Well, the system may make some sense, but IMHO, there is still zero sense
> > in policing this thing when you add a route. That's just plain bogus.
> > This is a bug which must be fixed ASAP.
> Correct me if I'm wrong but I think in this case the interface had
> forwarding enabled and the sanity check in fact prevented a default
> route pointing to the node itself from being configured.
> Otherwise I fully agree. The subnet router anycast address doesn't
> warrant any special handling.
If that's the case, it's OK -- it's OK, I don't remember the details.
(It might be nice to have configurable /proc option on whether to enable
the subnet router anycast address at all, but that's also a different
Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings