À (At) 11:07 -0800 2007-03-01, ron écrivait (wrote) :
>I think turning off the capability is a bad idea. If you are going to ignore
>the RFCs, it should always be indicated so that when you leave, the land
>mines you create should be flagged.
Believe it or not, I am not ignoring the RFCs. Actually, I am applying RFC3021
(please have a look at it). A search for '31-bit' on the Cisco site also turns
out some interesting documents.
>There are better ways to conserve IP addresses; like using unnumbered serial
>interfaces.
Does not work well on point-to-point Ethernet interfaces. Again, see RFC3021
for a discussion of the pros and cons of /31 masks. There are even security
benefits.
À (At) 12:20 -0700 2007-03-01, Mike Lieberman écrivait (wrote) :
> I think most of us agree with you that it's a bad idea.
A standards track RFC must have at least some merit.
> 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.
Well, the purpose of asking the question on the list was to gather opinions.
So, thanks all for responding. It seems that dropping the test entirely would
not be acceptable for some (or many, who knows) users of IM.
So maybe I could ask to Dartware : could you please provide optional support
for RFC3021 in InterMapper. Specifically, this means that one should be able to
disable the test for the usage of the broadcast address on an interface when
the subnet mask is /31.
Thank you again for taking the time to voice your opinion on this issue.
Best regards.
--
/AF
____________________________________________________________________
List archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/
To unsubscribe: send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
