[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       firewalls-gc
Subject:    Re: IP seq. number attacks
From:       Paul Ferguson <pferguso () cisco ! com>
Date:       1995-10-10 17:31:05
[Download RAW message or body]


> 
> With the setup you have, there is no real reason that I can see to exchange
> routing information with your provider. You can both live with static routes.
> You set the default route on your router to be his router. That way you can
> always get out. He sets a static route to your router on his. There probably
> isn't even any reason for the ISP to use dynamic routes since he probably
> only has one connection to another router.
> 

Bingo.

In fact, I can understand why most providers would prefer to do static 
routing when only a single access exists, simply because it is much 
simpler to avoid injecting errant routes into an external routing 
protocol.  :-)

In any event, the most compelling reason to do any type of dynamic
routing between a provider and client access is the presence of
dual or multihomed connectivity. 

- paul


-- 
Paul Ferguson                                           ||        ||
cisco Systems                                           ||        ||
Consulting Engineering                                 ||||      ||||
pferguso@cisco.com                                 ..:||||||:..:||||||:..
                                                   c i s c o S y s t e m s

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]