[145001] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Strange static route
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jim deleskie)
Fri Sep 23 21:58:43 2011
In-Reply-To: <85B958C1-E6DA-4FFC-B6E6-3962BFD3E424@antelope.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 22:57:09 -0300
From: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
To: Joel Maslak <jmaslak@antelope.net>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Wouldn't it make more sense to filter in bound default? or use a single
static default if you where worried about that?
-jim
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Joel Maslak <jmaslak@antelope.net> wrote:
> Protection against learning a bad default route through whatever routing
> protocol they are learning, since these two routes would be more specific
> than any typical default route. They probably got burned learning a default
> route.
>
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 7:12 PM, Glen Kent <glen.kent@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have seen a few operators adding static routes like:
> > 0.0.0.0/1 some next-hop and
> > 128.0.0.0/1 some next-hop.
> >
> > Why would anyone want to add such static routes? What does 0.0.0.0/1
> > mean. Note that the netmask is 1 and not 0.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Glen
> >
>
>
