hedrick@TOPAZ.RUTGERS.EDU.UUCP (05/06/87)
Our Arpanet gateway, 10.1.0.89, is receiving RIP (Unix routed) packets from 26.12.0.122. This seems to have started yesterday. Initially, the packets caused our routing tables to get into a loop. However I have now fixed things so that we ignore them. But does anybody know what is going on? We are still receving them. I sent something to root at that site and haven't yet gotten an answer. The site seems to be using the Wollongong System V TCP/IP implementation. It is possible that the packets are arriving via either Arpanet or NSFnet. However a packet watch on the NSFnet side suggests that they are not coming that way. (Unfortunately I have no way to do packet watches on the Arpanet side.) Normally RIP packets are broadcast on all connected Ethernet interfaces. I thought the Arpanet didn't do broadcasting, and that broadcasts certainly wouldn't go through the "mail bridges" between 26 and 10. Am I wrong?
swb@DEVVAX.TN.CORNELL.EDU.UUCP (05/07/87)
When we first put together the gatedaemon we discovered people sending RIP packets point-to-point over Arpanet and Milnet. I believe they were EGPing with a core gateway or two, and *in addition* sending point-to-point RIP packets to all of the thus-discovered external gateways, just to be sure packets to them would not go through an extra hop. Scott
karels%okeeffe@UCBVAX.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (05/08/87)
Your friend at 26.12.0.122 has added you to his list of external routed gateways. This is obviously nonsensical as you don't share a net. I can't understand how this got your routing into a loop, as any routes derived from him should be rejected (that address isn't reachable as a next-hop gateway). Mike
WANCHO@SIMTEL20.ARPA (05/08/87)
Chuck, The route daemon, routed, was experimentally turned on, eventually discovered to be a mistake, and since turned off. They were coming from an Ethernet host on the other side of an Ethernet-to-X.25 IP router connected to 26.12.0.122. The host, an AT&T 3B5, does indeed run AT&T SYS V Release 2.0.1 with the Wollongong TCP/IP. The reason you did not receive a direct reply is the reason that routed was turned on in the first place. It was thought that routed would solve the startup overhead of having to process route add commands for every gateway in the world. There obviously must be a better way - it's only because there's no definitive instructions that trial-and-error was used. If you know the correct way to solve the problem, please let me know, and I'll pass the word. --Frank