Re: [IM-Talk] /31 network masks

ron Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:50:21 -0800

Mike:

Good point.
My vote is I would NOT like that feature.


Mike Lieberman wrote:

Ron,

I think most of us agree with you that it's a bad idea.

        However I don't think it's InterMapper's role to enforce best

network practices.

        I am very concerned that we don't do that. We all use InterMapper in

different ways and for different purposes.

        I think the question is at this time does ANYONE other than the
author of the original post desire this? If not then, well, so it goes, I
doubt that Dartware will do it. If there are others, then those of us who

don't want it will have voiced out concern that it be an optional switch.


Best regards,
Mike Lieberman

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ron
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:07 PM
To: InterMapper Discussion
Subject: Re: [IM-Talk] /31 network masks

I think turning off the capability is a bad idea. If you are going toignore the RFCs, it should always be indicated so that when you leave,the land mines you create should be flagged.

There are better ways to conserve IP addresses; like using unnumberedserial interfaces.


Hill, Paul wrote:

I agree. Turning off a capability should only be as an option, if at all.
We need to know all info we can muster while troubleshooting.


Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]

[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Lieberman

Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 10:11 AM
To: 'InterMapper Discussion'
Subject: RE: [IM-Talk] /31 network masks


I guess if you made it a switch to opt out of the test then those who want

to use this hack may at their peril do so, but for me, I do not want to kill
off what I believe to be a critical control. Should anyone in our company
try a /31 I want to see it in RED with flares going off!

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jakob Peterhänsel
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 6:59 AM
To: InterMapper Discussion
Subject: Re: [IM-Talk] /31 network masks


Hi,
Not for me..


     Jakob Peterhänsel

"Be a part of the Love Generation - carry a smile, not a gun."
- JP, May 2006

Email:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIM:         Marook
Phone:     +45 29687104


On 01/03/2007, at 9.10, Alain Fontaine wrote:

Hi,

In order to save addresses, we are using /31 network masks on all
our point-to-point links between routers. While not completelykosher according to the holy RFCs, this practice is fully supportedon many routers.
However, InterMapper does not like this, and half of the interfaces
(those using the upper address) are flagged with :

Address:      a.b.c.203  (255.255.255.254)
                (a.b.c.203 is the broadcast address for this
subnet!)  <- in RED !

This is just a cosmetic glitch, but some people then think that
there must be something wrong with that interface.

My question: would it be a problem for anyone if I would suggest to
Dartware to drop the test for the broadcast address when the maskis /31.
Thanks.

--
/AF____________________________________________________________________List archives:http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/
To unsubscribe: send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

____________________________________________________________________