From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
Message-Id: <200302132314.h1DNEar23871@augusta.math.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Speaking of routing....
In-Reply-To: <43f3eff7a65deecc69011f7b01d398e4@plan9.bell-labs.com>
References: <20030213152152.U50928@fbsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Cc:
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:14:36 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5e3b1c1c-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

In article <43f3eff7a65deecc69011f7b01d398e4@plan9.bell-labs.com> you write:
>> Wasn't it the case that certain programs would look for a stack in /net.alt
>> if the /net one timeouted? Can't remember :(
>
>This behaviour is built into dial().

I guess it's the 30-second timeout-tax I'm bummed out about.  I guess
I don't see why, if I don't have a default route on the IP stack, it
would take 30 seconds to realize that sending a packet out of that stack
wasn't going to work.

	- Dan C.