[1744] in linux-net channel archive
Re: Static vs dynamic routing from ISP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Burton)
Tue Jan 30 22:56:03 1996
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 08:40:16 -0500 (EST)
From: John Burton <john@piper.gats.hampton.va.us>
To: Jonathan Bradshaw <jonathan@nrgup.com>
cc: Shawn Ruttledge <ecloud@goodnet.com>, linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <199601300346.WAA12321@Garbo.NrgUp.Com>
On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Jonathan Bradshaw wrote:
>
> No, the typical ISP does STATIC ROUTING. Dynamic routing has too many
> headaches associated with it. Terminal servers may have dynamic routes
> defined, but as a whole, static routes are much easier to administer for
> an ISP.
>
I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Perhaps *your* ISP does static
routing, but the ones I'm familiar with use dynamic routing. In particular
the two network connection (one to the Internet, and one to a large Class
B LAN0 use dynamic routing to handle the 6 Class C networks I'm dealing
with.
>
> No, you get your ISP to assign you more IP addresses and route them to you.
> You really are making this ALOT harder than it is because you are assuming
> the Internet runs on dynamic routing tables. It doesn't.
>
Huh? The Internet runs on *static* routing tables ? Not the portion of the
Internet I'm connected to. As far as the rest (including the Backbones) I
don't think static routing could *handle* the dynamic nature of the Internet
unless you had one person assigned to *every* router connected to it to
make sure that the routing tables were up to date.
Now, you *can* have *static* routes even if you are using dynamic routing.
This *seems* to be what you are talking about...
John
John Burton GATS, Inc.
j.c.burton@gats.hampton.va.us 28 Research Drive
j.c.burton@larc.nasa.gov Hampton, VA 23666
(804) 865-7491 (voice) (804) 865-1021 (fax)
