----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nathan Eisenberg" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected], "pfSense support and discussion" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 2:56:36 AM > Subject: Re: [pfSense] pfSense help with creating rules > > I think the entire ISP operation I partly run has... three routers > > that support > > it, AFAIK. So for all practical intents and purposes, that doesn't > > exist for me. > > > > It would be nice, most definitely, if it were supported by more > > equipment, > > but it's just not (in my corner of the world, anyway). > > > > So yes, for equipment that supports it, you're right - a /31 is the > > smallest > > IPv4-over-ethernet subnet. > > > > (There's also a philosophical point of whether Ethernet can ever > > truly be a > > PtP media even when physically connected PtP...) > > My Cisco 6509s/7204s/3550/3560/linux boxes support it just fine > (philosophy aside, it *works* over ethernet, even in a test case when > 'PtP' really meant 'these are the only two ports in the VLAN'). > Anything I own with an ARM chip (Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, or general > embedded hardware) in it, and my PFsense boxen, don't support it at > all. Very sad - some days, it almost makes me want to roll a bunch of > iptables boxes and reclaim a ton of usable IP space. Almost. :) > > Anyways, didn't mean to hijack the OP! Interested to see if Comcast is > actually handing him a /29, or just 5 IPs out of a bigger subnet, and > if they'll route that /29 to him. > > Nathan Eisenberg > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Comcast allocated a /30 for my WAN interface and a /28 for my network use. They are in different class C address spaces. Gordon Russell Clarke County IT _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
