À (At) 13:13 -0500 2007-03-02, Richard E. Brown écrivait (wrote) :
>1) /31 subnets. It seems as if there are proponents of both sides: people
>who
>never intend to deploy a /31 subnet, (and want a facility to warn them if
>they've done so); and people who regularly use them on point-to-point links as
>described in RFC 3021.
RFC3021 forever ! 8-) Maybe an option to make everyone happy ? A global server
option would do for us. I you want to make it a map, device, or interface
option, it's OK for me. Now, if you start to make interface options available,
beyond link speed, I have quite a few ideas to share...
>2) What about /32 subnets? Is anyone using them? (see the links below that
>discuss how they're used...)
Loopback interfaces are often configured with /32 addresses. We have dozens of
them, all for good reasons, or so we think. I've never seen InterMapper
complaining about them, so please don't fix what's not broken 8-).
>3) Are there other unusual subnets/related network configurations that we
>should
>take into account?
None as seen from here right now.
>My question to the group:
>
>What should/could *InterMapper* do when presented with equipment that uses any
>of these configurations?
See answers above.
Thank you for taking care of this issue.
Best regards.
--
/AF
____________________________________________________________________
List archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/intermapper-talk%40list.dartware.com/
To unsubscribe: send email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
