> Because it covers everything ELSE?
And Livingston would then have a different definition of "default route"
than everyone else in the world.
>> IMHO, it
>> would be much better to implement BGP4, blow away the default route
>> completely, and viola' you get Network Unreachable messages.
> BGP4 would cost you a lot more memory than a nondefault feature.
Yeah, but it would actually be a USEFUL feature. :)
>> If
>> Livingston went through the trouble to implement a "nondefault" command,
>> I would laugh histerically at them for wasting so much effort, and I
>> imagine that many other customers would be greatly pissed off for
>> wasting engineering resources doing this.
> Point. You're not exactly going to have many high-bandwidth connections to
>nowhere.
Exactly...that's why its not a big deal to let them play ping-pong for a
while. Now for dial-up connections which were mentioned, I can see
where something like that *MIGHT* be nice, but I don't think its worth
the effort to develop it.
>> If you're *that* anal retentive about things, then my suggestion would
>> be to get into another field of work. :)
> Yeah, right. I burned all my neural paths already. When the fall of
>civilization comes I'm going to be food.
Yeah, that does kinda come with the territory.
-- Jeff McAdams | A feature is a bug IgLou Internet Services | with seniority. e-mail: jeffm@iglou.com | -- unknown