From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-Id: <200302132346.h1DNkoM24181@augusta.math.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Speaking of routing....
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:24:10 EST."
             <2dfe988b9b04784bc0e9914296e4e74d@plan9.bell-labs.com>
From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:46:50 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5e4d4144-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> > 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.
>
> Generally how it should work is that name resolution fails on
> /net/cs, and dial moves on to /net.alt without having to time
> out.  This depends on you having ndb/cs set up right (one
> for each interface with its own ndb file) and also ndb/dns for
> DNS.  Of course, if you're using numeric IP addresses you'll
> get the timeout (unless you give /net.alt explicitly).

No, everything is using hostnames; perhaps it'll work.  I really need
to power everything up (the whole shebang is currently under my
girlfriend's bed in her apartment, and annoys her when she tries to
sleep; hence frequent power-downs) and test it for real, instead of
stabbing in the dark.

I would imagine that the IP stack would be smart enough, if it got a
packet destined for the outside network (for which it would have no
routes on the internal network) to say immediately, ``I don't know what
to do with this!'' and return an error, prompting dial() to proceed to
/net.alt without a perceptable delay.  Am I wrong?

It also occurs to me that for smtp, I can do bind's in upas's scripts
that go immediately to /net.alt, since no SMTP traffic will ever be
sent on the internal network.

	- Dan C.