From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hasso Tepper Subject: Re: icmp_unreachable uses wrong ip Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 20:38:21 +0300 Message-ID: <200505022038.22014.hasso@estpak.ee> References: <1115040079.5620.11.camel@jeroens.office.netland.nl> <200505021659.05674.hasso@estpak.ee> <42763E96.1070209@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "J. Simonetti" , netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Patrick McHardy In-Reply-To: <42763E96.1070209@trash.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Patrick McHardy wrote: > Hasso Tepper wrote: > > Similar patches have been posted to the list repeatedly AFAIK with no > > any response from developers. Can someone enlighten us why? Is there > > something wrong with it? This is the feature people administrating > > routers would like to have. It makes debugging complicated topologies > > much easier and all routers I have seen behave this way. > > Why can't you simply add the prefered source address to the route? Because I don't know what it is. Router A knows what's the best path from= =20 router A to router B, but he can't know (at least in cases where there ar= e=20 more than 1 path between them) what's the best path from router B to rout= er=20 A. Therefore you can=E4t say which one is incoming interface in router A = for=20 traffic from router B. And even if you know it in some moment, topology=20 might change in next moment (dynamic routing) etc. --=20 Hasso