I for one would NOT welcome this change. The RFC's are holy for a reason. If you're not Microsoft, then you SHOULD follow them ;).
JDP
PS: The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
NOT","SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL"
in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14, RFC
2119 [RFC2119].
---------------------------------
Jason D Poley
Network Tech
GS ITS Network
County of Santa Barbara
805.568.2680
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:InterMapper-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alain Fontaine
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:10 AM
> To: InterMapper Discussion
> Subject: [IM-Talk] /31 network masks
>
> Hi,
>
> In order to save addresses, we are using /31 network masks on all our
> point-to-point links between routers. While not completely kosher
> according to the holy RFCs, this practice is fully supported on 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 mask is /31.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> /AF
> ____________________________________________________________________
> List archives:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/
> To unsubscribe: send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
